Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 May 18

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< May 17 May 19 >

May 18 edit

Template:Music originated in Europe 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) 02:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Music originated in Europe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unwieldy navigation template that will be of little help to people who read any article tagged with this template. (Hard to imagine someone will be reading about "Mazurka" and want to go to "Blues rock" just because both originated in Europe). Could be a list instead, better as a category, best as deleted completely. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I had suggested on the talkpage that this could be sub-divided, but even that probably wont help. It is just too unwieldy. A category would probably be the best alternative.--SabreBD (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I said on the talk page, "this is completely ridiculous. It's way too generic and loosly connected to be needed. Category, maybe. Navbox, not a chance.". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made this template, I see that them seemed too long, to me too, did not know that there were so many genres that have originated in europe .. I'm better will subdivided into two templates, one with "folk genes" and the other "non folk genres" . what do you think?--Vvven (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In addition to the points already mentioned, this template is not well thought through. There are no evident criteria for what belongs in it, including criteria for what constitutes "European origin" (the many derivative subgenres of American popular-music genres, for example). As Myke pointed out on the talk page, one of the listed "genres" is the Roman de Fauvel. If this is a genre, then so are La Traviata and Fifth Symphony. Then there is the "other items" catchall, which has got several period designators in it just like other period designators listed under "genres". I see no reason why there should not also be a section on, for example, musical instruments, concert halls, or artists' agents. User:Vvven is going to feel I am stabbing him in the back, since I am the editor responsible for adding more items than anyone except him. As I promised on the template talk page, I have added well over a hundred topics, but my aim has been not to save the template, but rather to demonstrate how ill-considered it is. As for dividing it in two, I don't think that will solve anything, and especially not by trying to make a distinction between "folk" and "non-folk" genres (e.g., is Pibroch folk or non-folk? What about Tonality or Medieval?).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I mentioned on the talk page, the name implies this is about music that originated in Europe. But that is not what is listed; it is actally something more like every genre ever performed in Europe, and that does not seem very useful. Lambtron (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally useless and unhelpful to readers. Originating in Europe is not a strong enough element to tie together so many different types of music from different eras. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inaccurate, misleading, unwieldy and generally inappropriate.--Smerus (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hard to navigate and vague in scope. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nom, would be better suited to a category. This is difficult to navigate.LM2000 (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with everyone above. The creator also keeps adding it to articles where the sources actually explicitly disagree with the music having originated in Europe. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This navigation template is ill-conceived, inaccurate and uninformative. --Omnipaedista (talk) 01:57, 21 May 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:2012–13 Fußball-Bundesliga table 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) 21:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2012–13 Fußball-Bundesliga table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Substitute and delete – Redundant since the league is over. Kingjeff (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the Pokal Final, and then substitute and delete. Stigni (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:45, 19 May 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:16TeamBracket-2Leg-final-1leg 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) 21:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:16TeamBracket-2Leg-final-1leg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is no longer needed. The Template:16TeamBracket-2legs-except final provides the same function as this template and is more widely used. In addition, no article transcludes or uses this template. MicroX (talk) 08:14, 18 May 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:Keep local 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 speedy keep. It is clear nobody agrees with Addihockey10, and two prior TFDs should have amply attested to that. The time being spent arguing on this TFD page should rather be spent deciding on a new wording for the template on its talk page. Please continue the conversation at Template talk:Keep local. Shii (tock) 06:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Keep local (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is useless, it undermines the reason we have commons. This template is abused when someone does not like the outcome of a DR on commons (see examples ex 1 diff ex 1 DR ex 2 ex 2 DR) The high-risk images in this category can be protected from creation, as far as I understand the cascading protection on those images will prevent any non-admin from uploading a file with that name and since it's a high-risk image they can be protected on commons which eliminates the need to retain a local copy. The author of the file should not be able to impose additional restrictions outside of the standard restrictions of our allowed licenses.

Over time images are improved, optimized, updated and it would not be practical to have to update two separate image files which are exactly the same. All files tagged with this aren't free, they're restricted similar to the licenses now under WP:CSD#F3 which are now deprecated. There is no way that an editor should get a free pass to keep a local image without any justification necessary, especially in the cases where they are involved in a deletion request with the same image. Thank you. --Addihockey10 e-mail 04:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep - if the template is being misused in any way that can be addressed, but there are in fact numerous reasons why a local copy of an image might be appropriate. Note also that it doesn't prevent images from being copied to Commons, if appropriate. The nomination seems a bit confused and does not appear to present any valid reason for deletion of the template. The two previous deletion nominations both ended with a strong consensus for retention of the template. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the misuse isn't being addressed and there is no policy for the use of this template. Theoretically I could tag every image with this template and no one could do anything about it as the template has no policy regarding it's usage. I am calling for deletion of this template as it stands now, I'm not saying that any different approach is wrong but we either need to get rid of this template or develop a policy that restricts it's usage to reasonable rationales. --Addihockey10 e-mail 05:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this should be used on all files where commons have questionable/ambivalent/fluctuating policies on whether they accept those kinds of images or not. And for any for local projects where it might be valid to change the general image, but not where it pertains to a local project usage. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There are uses for having multiple versions of a file (different translations etc) and it'd be preferable if there were one image only on Commons so that when it's updated other wikis can use the most up-to-date file available because it is highly doubtful that the editor updating the image on enwiki will notice that "hey, they image is used on 30 other wikis on commons, maybe I should update that too!" (no, that never happens) so we should have one place for free images, Commons. That way the most up-to-date file will be available to all wikis, because enwiki is no more important than any of the other language wikis out there and the other wikis transfer their images to commons without issue. --Addihockey10 e-mail 16:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Not this again. Did the proposer even read the two previous debates? If they did, it was highly disingenuous not to link to them at the head of this thread, or even mention them in the proposal. And if they did not it shows a lazy nomination that did not even bother to look on the talk page of the thing they are trying to delete. I can't make head nor tail of the examples of claimed abuse, both debates ended in keep at Commons so I fail to see how this is an attempt to circumvent Commons rules. In any case, our rules are different from Commons and it is not circumventing anything. If the images were not suitable for Commons then {{Do not move to Commons}} would be a more appropriate template in any case. By the way, why does this user's page claim to be retired when they are clearly very active? SpinningSpark 07:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So I didn't link the previous debates, big whoop, but I agree that {{Do not move to Commons}} is an appropriate template to use in which case the license is disputed and the image is deleted on commons. There's no valid reason to keep files locally when they are allowed on commons, it kind of defeats the purpose, no? For the users that update the images as said in the above comment, there is a very slim chance that they will update both images and let them be available to all of the other wikis in the Wikimedia scope. --Addihockey10 e-mail 16:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had bothered to actually read the previous debate (and it should noe be becoming abundantly clear in this one also) many editors do believe there are valid reasons for keeping a local copy. For one thing it makes monitoring articles one is interested in a lot easier. For another, Commons has different needs - for instance, annotation on diagrams on Commons needs to be removed or internationalised in order to make the file as widely useful as possible. However, removing the English annotation on a diagram in the English Wikipedia could detract from the article, or even render it completely unintelligible. Far better to allow Commons to have their own separate copy to do with as they like. SpinningSpark 22:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Commons is a multilingual project, so it is possible to have monolingual annotations in any language, including English. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close the nomination on procedural grounds. The nominator did not address any of numerous arguments in favor of this template posted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 20#Template:KeepLocal. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please mention any arguments I did not address and I will address them. --Addihockey10 e-mail 16:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is your responsibility, not my. As you started this wasting of our attention, it is you who should decide what to entertain now. I still insist that the nomination shall be speedily closed. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A TfD is meant to enforce policy, not to change it. I don't think that a TfD is the correct venue for changing the use of this template. An RfC may be more appropriate.
A request to keep a copy of a file doesn't make the file unfree. In the same way, an article isn't unfree simply because the community decides to keep it in an AfD. A request to keep a file is not a binding requirement to do so. The community is free to ignore any such request, which for example sometimes happens at WP:PUF, if a file with this template is found to be a copyright violation. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Admins don't touch files with {{keeplocal}} because it explicitly says that you cannot delete it per F8 - how are they not binded to comply with that policy? I've requested some of the loosest admins to delete some noncontroversial free files and they refused solely because of that tag, which was placed by an editor who disagreed with the outcome of the DR. --Addihockey10 e-mail 15:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is complete bollocks, at least for the examples you have quoted so far. As I already noted above, all your examples were closed keep in the Commons DRs you have linked so cannot possibly be tagged to circumvent a Commons decision. Why do you keep repeating this when it is patently not correct? SpinningSpark 22:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly misunderstand one of the key points of this discussion, I never said that they were tagged to influence the DR, I said they were tagged because the editors in question didnt like the outcome. --Addihockey10 e-mail 05:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you need to explain this "key point" a lot more carefully. The outcome in both cases at Commons was "keep". If the editors did not like this outcome then presumably they wanted the files deleted. How on earth is tagging them "Do not move to Commons" on Wikipedia supposed to help achieve that? Also, I do not believe that I actually said, or even implied, anywhere that you said tagging was intended to influence the DR discussion. SpinningSpark 07:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that a TfD can't change policy. As long as the WP:CSD#F8 policy tells that a file with {{keep local}} can't be deleted under the F8 criterion, files with {{keep local}} can't be deleted under that criterion even if {{keep local}} is a red link. You would have to change the policy first. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Commons is a different project run by different people with different values. There's a lot of bad blood between the projects now and there's serious talk of cutting Commons loose. They do not own the images in question which are freely licensed for all to use as they see fit, per the licensing conditions. If users wish to retain their local copies they are free to do so and the template provides a convenient way of recording this. Warden (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You missed one point, though: the users wishing to keep a local copy do not own the images either. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lack of ownership means that anyone and everyone is entitled to have a copy — the more the merrier. It is especially worth keeping the original upload because it is usually the primary version from which the other copies are derived. Warden (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Colonel Warden. Hello, usually when images are transferred to commons their complete history in also transferred (previous versions, upload log(s)) thus making them available for modification/optimization/updating by any users who choose to do so. I don't see where/how I said/implied that commons owned the images, but if you note the examples in the nomination, a user can tag this image just because they disagree with the DR outcome and be completely within the bounds of policy. If someone wanted to make a WP:POINT they could tag all of the freely licensed images with this tag and then maybe more people will see how utterly stupid this template is. If people have a dispute about the copyright status on a file, this is a such a weak way to prevent the file from being used by enwp on commons, (they are making a WP:POINT themselves) and instead of resorting to this they should participate in a DR regarding the file and the fate of the image can be determined that way, not by some disgrunted user where the DR didn't close in their favour so they use this template as a free pass to keep it on enwp. --Addihockey10 e-mail 15:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • You use the abbreviation DR as if I should know what it means. It took me a little while to figure out that it's Deletion Request. That seems to be some Commons bureaucracy that I'm not familiar with. I already have more than enough trouble with the deletionist bureaucracy on this project: AFD, FFD, MFD, &c. I shouldn't have to wrestle with the bureaucracy on other projects too and this template helps me avoid that aggravation. The template that should be deleted instead is {{db-nowcommons}}. Hmmm... Warden (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why yes I do use the term because since you're participating in a deletion discussion I'd expect that you would've read the nom, which links to two different DR's and is part of the key reason why this template should be deleted or changed to prevent forcing the image to stay local even if there are no issues with the commons file. --Addihockey10 e-mail 20:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, I did read and inwardly digest all that. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • An editors wishes doesn't triumph policy, thus if the template is to be kept, the wording "This file does not meet CSD F8, and should not be nominated for deletion as a Commons duplicate without the permission of the tagging editor" must be removed, or changed into something more neutral "If reasonable, keep a local copy of this file on the wiki even though an eventual copy might exists on commons". If this can't be done, then delete the template. →AzaToth 19:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems to be a fairly recent addition, but on checking whether or not that really is policy I find that WP:CSD#F8 really does say that. I therefore request an immediate procedural close on the grounds that the closing admin will have no authority to act against policy and will have no option but to close as keep. SpinningSpark 22:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - I have had image uploads attacked at Commons as part of a personal vendetta, this helps assure that legitimate copies of the file will be preserved from this sort of treachery. Commons is a broken, dysfunctional mess, by the way. Carrite (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism will happen anywhere, do you have specific links to these incidents? --Addihockey10 e-mail 20:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks as a straw man argument, because such use of {{keep local}} is exactly the reason why ADH10 tries to eliminate it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many contributors have uploaded content on the express condition that they not have to deal with the awful, dysfunctional, horrible commons. Deleting this template and forcing unwilling editors into the clusterfuck over there is cruel, and violates the conditions upon which a great deal of material was originally submitted. This template is absolutely essential to getting some content, and since it does not prevent a copy from being made, it benefits the ingrates at commons and all the other wikiprojects out there. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 23:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are at least two reasons why a copyright-free image should be kept on en.Wikipedia.
    1. It would meet the frequently-used criterion for protection on en.Wikipedia. There is absolutely no reason why en.Wikipedia admins should trust commons admins to protect their site, and the reverse.
    2. The copyright status is disputed on commons, but not on en.Wikipedia. Freedom of panorama and extended copyright in the country of origin not recognized by the US are reasons why the actual copyright rules may be different between en.Wikipedia and commons. In addition, even if the relevant laws are the same, certain types of images have been deleted on Commons even though clearly copyright-free; the guidelines for such deletions may also be different on en.Wikipedia.
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 04:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've always thought of this as a courtesy we extend to uploaders. If they want to keep a local copy for whatever reason (e.g. dislike of Commons, worry that it will get deleted on Commons due to running afoul of non-US copyright law, etc.), then just let them, no big deal. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is already handled by requiring sufficient information before a file can be deleted as F8. See the text "The image's license and source status is beyond reasonable doubt, and the license is undoubtedly accepted at Commons." and the following explanations at WP:CSD#F8. If a file doesn't have sufficient or correct information, and if the person who moved the file to Commons forgot to copy over some required information or old revisions of the file, then the file simply doesn't satisfy WP:CSD#F8 and can't be deleted as such until the missing information has been provided. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but ask for explanation why uploader wants to keep local. If someone genuinely doesn't like Commons or wants to store something locally, that's fine... but I think it is perfectly reasonable to want to have an explanation of why. There's a simple reason for this: in some cases, the reason why an image is kept locally rather than on Commons is a reason that may change (copyright laws change, for instance). Knowing why it is that the image is kept locally means that if the uploader goes away, we can move the image over to Commons if the reason to keep it locally is no longer applicable. I'd suggest that we gently prod uploaders into providing a reason as part of the template. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Long story and not necessary to explain as this template is obviously going to be kept.  Giano  18:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's probably worth mentioning the long story to help others in the future understand the actual value of this template. Sometimes a valued contributor creates an diagram or takes a photo for use in an article that they are leisurely researching, but which doesn't exist yet - or is being worked on in userspace. They upload the images to English Wikipedia, so that they don't have to keep checking a watchlist on another project to keep track of them. Nevertheless, somebot tags those images {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}; they are copied over; the ENWP versions now get CSD F8 deleted from here; later, some zealot deletes the files from Commons as unused on any project. The valued contributor some time later returns to the article only to find that there are no traces of the images he uploaded earlier. Pissing off valued contributors is a pretty poor way of improving our encyclopedia, so this template is incredibly valuable as a simple means of preventing these sort of scenarios. --RexxS (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's true also, but I was thinking more of the turning the specifically taken images for Belton House (a featured article) into what appeared to be 8 distorted pixelated squares illustrating nothing.  Giano  19:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem to have anything to do with F8, though. If there are copyright problems, or if the person doesn't copy relevant information to Commons, the file is ineligible for deletion per WP:CSD#F8 as F8 only applies to files which have been transferred correctly and where there is no reasonable doubt that the licence wouldn't be accepted on Commons. Unused images are frequently deleted as useless on both Commons and Wikipedia, so those won't be deleted more frequently there than here. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Tom Morris. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this template is useful when an image uploaded locally exists on commons, but must exist locally for a reason. //iXavier <talk/edits/logs> 03:43, 22 May 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:Unsolved 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Giving this one a nudge again, having been surprised to encounter it while reading about the Beggar-My-Neighbour card game. This template produces a floating grey box containing an unsolvable problem related to the article, phrased as a (sometimes quite lengthy) question and titled with a link to "List of unsolved problems in [field]". The question is either repeating a "this problem is famously unsolved" statement already made in the corresponding section of article text, or making an additional, otherwise-unmentioned point which the article does not address.

This template was TfD'd a year ago for being inappropriately WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, which I don't think it particularly is - the problem is just that this 2005 template looks out of place in modern Wikipedia articles, which generally use either navboxes or sidebars for this kind of navigation, both of which seem more useful than detaching what would otherwise be a line of article prose and giving it a "List of unsolved problems in X" caption.

Comments on the last TfD suggested replacing this with a series of "unsolved problems in [field]" sidebars (providing direct links to other problems in the same field); another approach would be to flesh out the existing {{unsolved problems}} template into ten sections with links in each. Either way, I think this original template has probably had its day. McGeddon (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. For articles about unsolved problems (like P versus NP problem), a sidebar or navbox would be more appropriate and a lot more useful. For other articles, like Beggar-My-Neighbour, which briefly discuss an unsolved problem related to the topic, the template is redundant, since the problem is already set out in the article. In both cases, this template is really just an unconventional "see also" link, rather than serving any kind of navigational purpose, and links to this one set of articles shouldn't be given such prominence. DoctorKubla (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blatant WP:NOTTEXTBOOK violation. Either repeats stuff already in the article, or raises a point not made in it at all. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Ten Pound Hammer: Could you explain HOW this violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOK? I see no connection. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't need another TfD. It needs someone to do the required work, as detailed in the previous TfD, after which there should be minimal objection to the resultant sidebars. What the previous TfD did suggest is that while the presentation is suboptimal there's broad consensus that the topic is appropriate for navigational templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain that this template's advocates would wholeheartedly embrace its replacement with a series of sidebars. For one thing, sidebars are a lot more limited in scope; they can only include problems that are the focus of an article, not simply mentioned in passing. I'm willing to put together the sidebars in question (I've made a start at User:DoctorKubla/Unsolved), but I'd like to know beforehand that it won't be a waste of time, so I think this TfD is necessary. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That looks absolutely fine to me. I haven't seen anyone arguing against using sidebars for these, so I don't see any barrier to that work being rolled out. Thanks for stepping up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've always liked this template: it's rather charming in math articles, and I find it draws the attention to interesting and important aspects of articles. I would be very sad to see this information eliminated or obscured. --JBL (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this is a non-standard "see also" link. (I don't think it really violates the WP:NOTTEXTBOOK policy, though.) However, it gives useful information to the reader, which should not be lost. Keep. I won't object to replacing the template with something better (as suggested in the previous TfD); however, to nominate the template for deletion without suggesting a replacement is to put the cart before the horse. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested a couple of replacements and hoped that other ideas and/or a consensus would emerge from the discussion. DoctorKubla's sidebars would work well for articles which are entirely about the problem; for those which aren't, either the text already mentions the problem's noted lack of solution (and this can be given a wikilink or a {{seealso}} to "list of unsolved problems in X") or it doesn't (and the floating question box can be reframed as prose, with maybe some sourcing and context). We can make sure that no such information is lost, should the template be deleted. --McGeddon (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Provides a clear summary of the problem being discussed. I do not see a WP:NOTTEXTBOOK violation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very useful tag. Cstanford.math (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Replace with special navbox. Even though there are analogous structures such as See also, navboxes and sidebars, they don't have exactly the same function as this: present the question in an easily accessible form. If it was replaced by a navbox, then it should still contain the question itself. --vuo (talk) 11:04, 17 May 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) 02:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Navboxes etc. have a different function: pointing you to different articles. This main function of this is instead to draw attention to what about the current article's subject is unknown. Especially for mathematics articles (where a reasonable fraction of readers are likely to be mathematicians who may be challenged by the open problems) this seems like a valuable and hard-to-replace function. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't much care for the look of this template either, but that is not a reason for deletion, that is a reason for improvement. And for goodness sake, this is the fifth time this has come to TfD, surely that should be telling you something? (don't waste people's time with a lost cause perhaps?). SpinningSpark 09:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for whether it belongs in the articles, that is a matter for a case-by-case discussion on the talkpages of the articles concerned. Deciding article content in some backwater template discussion is far from appropriate. SpinningSpark 11:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I feel the correct "look" for this kind of information is a sidebar, a wikilink or a seealso, "improvement" would effectively be destroying the template. This seemed like the best, most prominent place to raise that possibility (a TfD'd template raises an alert line on the articles its being deleted from), rather than boldly "improving" the articles myself, or questioning them all individually on articles, to mixed response. I thought the other TfDs seemed old and underdiscussed enough to merit another look, particularly with the focus of most of them being the WP:NOTTEXTBOOK tone of the boxes' questions. --McGeddon (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simple deletion is not an option, User:DoctorKubla/Unsolved is not a replacement, and I do not understand other nominator’s proposals. Until they explained it better, let it be kept as is. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the sidebar, while well-intentioned, misses the point about what makes this template valuable. --JBL (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it'd help to have a clear proposal from the nominator, it would just be:-
  • Replace it with a sidebar template like this one on any article whose main subject is an unsolved problem, and which could helpfully be said to be "part of a series on unsolved problems in X". (eg. P versus NP problem, which currently says "List of unsolved problems in computer science: Is P = NP ?" in its floating box.)
  • Delete it from any article where it's simply repeating already wikified article text. (eg. Turbulence, which says "Still, a complete description of turbulence remains one of the unsolved problems in physics." in prose and opens with "Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman described turbulence as 'the most important unsolved problem of classical physics'." in the lede, followed by a floating "List of unsolved problems in physics: Is it possible to make a theoretical model to describe the behavior of a turbulent flow — in particular, its internal structures?" box later in the article.)
  • Delete it but add a wikilink/seealso in any article where the box is repeating article text but otherwise not linking to the "list of unsolved problems in X" article. (eg. Beggar-My-Neighbour, where a section opens "A longstanding question in combinatorial game theory asks whether there is a game of Beggar-My-Neighbour that goes on forever." with a template saying "List of unsolved problems in mathematics: Is there a non-terminating game of Beggar-My-Neighbour?" immediately next to it.)
  • Delete it and add the same question as prose, in any article where the question raised in the box is not explained in the article body. (Although I can't find any obvious examples of this being the case, skimming the template usage.)
That's it. So long as a list of templated articles is noted somewhere, all of these steps could be applied afterwards and piecemeal, were the templates to be removed. --McGeddon (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't need "questions" regarding other articles in one article. Makes the articles look quite childish btw. Garion96 (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it will be changed to User:DoctorKubla/Unsolved. Garion96 (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Childish how? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As others have pointed out, the function of this template is to draw attention to an unsolved problem that is germane to the topic of the article, and link to a list of related problems. The function is different from a navbox, and this seems to be a valuable resource to the reader. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems important to inform readers in a clear manner that it's a major unsolved problem in mathematics. I don't see how WP:NOTTEXTBOOK is relevant. Cliff12345 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I agree with Joel B. Lewis; the template appears as a convenient link to other items of interest at just the right moment and calls attention to the fact that the topic is one of ongoing interest. It thus fulfills the purpose of informing not instructing and doesn't violate NotTextBook (though even that is being overplayed here as saying that WP must be dry and can't be exciting; there's nothing there that says informing can't be fun). I would support a move to "Unsolved Math" or something since similar templates could exist (I'd encourage) in other fields -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it is useful. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I probably have more experience editing Wikipedia mathematics articles than anyone else here. I find this template informative and useful. What this could possibly have to do with making Wikipedia resemble a textbook is something that no one has attempted to explain here. I see no connection. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can nobody explain HOW WP:NOTTEXTBOOK is relevant here? Those who say it's relevant are just tossing that out as if that were somehow self-evident. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although the policy name keeps popping up in this discussion, only a single editor - the second commenter - has actually said that they see it as relevant. --McGeddon (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the person who proposed deletion also said that. Without explanation. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The person who nominated it for deletion was McGeddon, who responded to your question above. He stated in his nomination "This template was TfD'd a year ago for being inappropriately WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, which I don't think it particularly is". So he doesn't think it's relevant, only one editor in this discussion said it is relevant. Garion96 (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the concern is that the box looks a little bit like it's asking a textbook-style leading question: "Is it possible to make a theoretical model to describe the behavior of a turbulent flow — in particular, its internal structures? Physicists are unsure.", which wouldn't be an appropriate tone of voice for Wikipedia, but I think it's close enough to "An unsolved problem in physics is whether it is possible to make a theoretical model to describe the behavior of a turbulent flow — in particular, its internal structures." that this isn't really a problem. --McGeddon (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of my favorite templates on Wikipedia. Extremely thoughtful part of the encyclopedia. Shii (tock) 06:00, 22 May 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:Egypt Central 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 due to the lack of primary links (even with Devour the Day)  Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC) (Updated 02:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Template:Egypt Central (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner talk 18:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Just added Devour The Day, a band formed by two former Egypt Central members. The five articles in the navbox do not all link to one another without the navbox (Note: this navbox was created over one year ago, well before the RFC against me)?. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not matter when it is created, it fails WP:NENAN. Even with the "related" item, of which you know that they don't count towards relevant links (beside that, that other band is completely irrelevant for this band) The Banner talk 03:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - NENAN is an essay, not a policy, so the number 5 is arbitrary, given that the articles do not all link to one another. Additionally, the new band is not 100% irrelevant, as two members of Egypt Central formed DTD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that is your standard reply when you have no content-related defence. The Banner talk 14:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough links to recommend a navbox. The indirect relationship between White Rabbit (Egypt Central song) and Devour the Day doesn't require interlinks. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - While tangential links are not ideal, they are a fact of life in MANY navboxes about musical ensembles. The singles on one album might not be directly related to the singles on another album either. People who want to know more about what happened to Egypt Central may want to know more about DTD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's perfectly acceptable and there's a link to do just that in the "associated acts" line in both bands' infoboxes. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - People who know that Egypt Central disbanded may read about "White Rabbit" and decide they want to know more about DTD. Besides, DTD will soon release an album (if they have not done so already). --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That should be solved by adding a "See also" -section in the article. It is no reason for a nav box. The Banner talk 14:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - See Also sections are more difficult to maintain. If this is the solution, then why do we have navboxes at all?
Note to admin - Devour The Day was removed from the navbox in the middle of the discussion, and I did not readd it per WP:BRD. This article should be considered with respect to the number of relevant links in the navbox. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ow, now you try it this way. In fact, DTD is just moved to the "See also"-section of the article itself. The Banner talk 00:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:SEEALSO, "one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics". Tangentially related topics don't need to be in a navbox because you wouldn't necessarily put the navbox in those articles. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Whether you call DTD a new band, or a new lineup of Egypt Central, at the end of the day, it is all semantics, as Spider One is the only original member of PM5K and DTD has two of the four members of EC, so IMHO, the link between DTD and EC is not so tangential (one member only might be more tangential). Also, DTD is not shown in the See Also section of "White Rabbit". --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:25, 17 May 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) 02:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No naxbox needed for these links. Garion96 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Why exactly is "No naxbox needed for these links"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, only two albums and one single. band is no longer active, so it is unlike that there will be more albums. Frietjes (talk) 17:35, 27 May 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_May_18&oldid=1167720982"