Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 May 20

< May 19	May 21 >

May 20 edit

Template:Violence against people edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Violence against people (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be a WP:POVFORK to get around objections to adding material to Template:Violence against men. This template duplicates much material in that template and Template:Violence against women, and is impossibly broad (e.g. could include assault, war, spanking, riot, BDSM, pogrom, torture, combat, abuse, martial arts, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Technical 13 (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Technical 13. No, seriously, it's too general and contains no content not present in the gender-specific violence templates.--Laun chba ller 22:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the intent here is to group gender-neutral violence topics (several topics appear in both Template:VAM and Template:VAW) so that we can focus the M/W templates solely on gendered violence. Duplicating content in both categories doesn't make sense. This is hardly a fork, as Jay calls it, but rather, a consolidation. At least 4 articles: human trafficking, rape, sexual slavery and sexual violence appears on both the VAM and VAW templates. There is unnecessary duplication here. Either a form of violence is something Wikipedia opts to classify as gendered (in which case it appears on one or the other) or it's common enough for both genders and should be listed on a consolidated template rather than linking it on both templates, which is unnecessary duplication. While it's true that violence is a broad topic and could include a large variety of issues, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a template for them. It may just mean that 'violence against people' is a sidebar template that could eventually be split into more specific ones if it becomes too large. There is a lack of templates about violence, such as the topics Jayjg mentioned, so I don't see the problem in having a template about them. Ranze (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too broad to be a useful template directing readers to possibly hundreds of articles, untenable, consider instead making a category. Zad68 03:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually Category:Violence already exists. Zad68 03:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Templates like this often compliment categories. Template:VAW compliments Category:Violence against women, while Template:VAM compliments Category:Violence against men. This would specifically be a way to track non-gendered violence against people. We would not have to list exclusively gendered violence in it, and we would also exclude violence not done directly to persons (for example: damage to property, damage to non-human animals, damage to plants, etc). It would be valuable have some kind of sidebar to keep track of stuff like this. Much of the contents of this category are gender neutral, so I will add them too. Ranze (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at the 'forms' second section of the template, this includes things covered in neither template from the violence category. I just used some stuff present in those as a basic template because I was copying the format and realized some issues transfer. Listed many forms of non-gendered violence that apply to people in general. Ranze (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Launchballer and Jayjg. Too broad and a clear WP:POVFORK--Cailil ^talk 12:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Launch made 2 claims, are you supporting the 'contains no content not present' (this is false) or 'too general' (also false) claim? Violence against people is not impossibly broad if we focus on things that are implicitly violent. Stuff like BDSM and martial arts, which Jay mentioned, would not be, since they can be consensual hobbies. You're calling it broad before it's even broadened. It's a decent size right now, and if it gets to the point where too many things are added we can split it into other templates. It is valuable to have a sidebar to organize this content though. This is not a POVfork. It is not "another version of the article" nor "another article on the same subject". POVfork guidelines are for articles, and this is a template about a different topic, about violence against people in general, opposite gender-specific forms of violence. Ranze (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, way too broad to be useful. Kaldari (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many things that can affect either gender and few things that are really gender specific. Dream Focus 00:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give example of anything gender specific there? I took pains to avoid putting anything exclusive to a gender on the list. Ranze (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forced abortion, Forced pregnancy, Murder of pregnant women, Pregnancy from rape, etc. are things on Template:Violence against women which are abuse that only is afflicted against women. When it comes to things that are on either template, for men or women, then no reason to have two templates appear in those articles. Just show this template for violence against people, instead of just presenting the incorrect case that it only affects women. Dream Focus 23:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GideonF (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong voting ;) Ranze (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, as this has the potential of becoming very bloated, and sidebars are not the place for long lists. better to have a navbox, and to merge violence against men and violence against women together if there is an issue with overlap. Frietjes (talk) 15:19, 28 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 2. 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) 00:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2012–13 2. Fußball-Bundesliga table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2012–13 3. Fußball-Liga table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Substitute and delete. Both templates are redundant. No need for the templates anymore. Kingjeff (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Kante4 (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong disagree, except if someone reworks the tables into the articles about these particular seasons. The tables show how the divisions finished this season, won't deleting them remove the standings so nothing will be visible about the tables in these divisions this season? The finished tables are the most important thing about a season. How can that become "redundant", or am I missing something here? finval (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or am I overreacting and "substitute" means that the tables will be visible in the articles? finval (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The redundancy is referring to the table in the form of a template. Substitute means that the table would be visible in the article. It's a matter of copy what is in the template and paste it in the relevant articles. Kingjeff (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree then. finval (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Substitute and delete. The template is no longer needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.140.60 (talk) 13:05, 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.

Template:Unanswered 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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 May 28 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:05, 28 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:Rolls-Royce Trent series 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, but feel free to relist, or continue the discussion elsewhere. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rolls-Royce Trent series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicates this template Template:Rolls-Royce plc aeroengines. Do we need both? Doesn't offer anymore detail or information compared to Template:Rolls-Royce plc aeroengines. Thanks JetBlast (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the template creator it was designed to disambiguate and clarify the relationship between all nine articles containing the name Rolls-Royce Trent and to allow the reader to easily move between related articles which is the main purpose of a navbox. I believe the template was approved by other members of the aero engine task force in this discussion from September 2009 concerning the split of a very large (as it was) Rolls-Royce Trent article. Template:Rolls-Royce plc aeroengines does not contain the two Trent engines designed by Rolls-Royce Limited, the Rolls-Royce RB.50 Trent and the Rolls-Royce RB.203 Trent, it does not duplicate that template as stated but compliments it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other template is clear enough.... --JetBlast (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The alternate to this template is the addition of nine plus articles to the 'See also' section of each article. This idea was deprecated as untidy by removing the |sequence coding from Template:Aircontent around 2009, the entries being moved to navboxes by consensus of the aircraft project at that time. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Both templates are clearly complimentary and aid the reader in understanding the complex nomenclature issues involved in the engine series. Deleting this template would hamper reader comprehension. - Ahunt (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Both templates are in all related articles. This is a navigation box and is not meant to "aid the reader in understanding" - that's what the article is for. Secondarywaltz (talk)
There's no argument against these being redundant. The larger template is not so stuffed full of links as to make it particularly difficult to locate the Trent links. This appears to be a case of using a navbox to taxonomise, which isn't the purpose of navboxes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete as redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 20:34, 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) 04:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The standard of analysis by those suggesting "delete" is very disappointing. The template includes Rolls-Royce RB.50 Trent, for example, which is not (and should not be) included in Template:Rolls-Royce plc aeroengines. It is incorrect to claim both templates are in all related articles, for example see Rolls-Royce RB.50 Trent which does not and should not transclude Template:Rolls-Royce plc aeroengines. It is unreasonable to assert there is "no argument against these being redundant". The larger template does not and should not contain all the links in the smaller one. And "redundant navigation" seems a subjective view maybe by someone unfamiliar with the templates. If people editing the associated articles think these templates help the reader, their views should be respected. Thincat (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the stuff in Template:Rolls-Royce Trent series is present in Template:Rolls-Royce plc aeroengines, however in my opinion there is no point in having both. Merge content of trent series into aeroengines and leave a redirect.--Laun chba ller 23:16, 20 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.