Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 March 9

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 8 March 10 >

March 9 edit

Template:Great apes intelligence 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 rename and reformat, feel free to renominate if that does not happen, or if you still want to see the template deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Great apes intelligence (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a template created by a user (user:CYl7EPTEMA777) who was blocked in part because of competency issues. This template is an incoherent collection of articles on primates and whatever the editor threw in. The name of this template is also grammatically incorrect. Everything that could be covered by a template such as this is better covered by the "Animal cognition" template we already have. I am One of Many (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but, it could come back later if need be. Currently the animal cog one covers stuff nicely I think. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Template:Great ape language and prune accordingly. This is not my field but I have done some copy-editing on some articles within it, and Great ape language strikes me as a topic for which a navigation template along these lines could be valid and useful. I dispute the suggestion that Template:Animal cognition is sufficient for this topic. – Fayenatic London 22:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The problem with renaming the template as you suggest is that no primates other than humans have language. There have been attempts to teach some great apes language, but they can only acquire a few hundred symbols for objects and simple combinations of symbols; nothing approaching the grammar or syntax of natural human languages. For now, the templates Ape-related articles and Animal cognition are more than sufficient. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please would you have the courtesy to provide links so that other editors can more easily form their own view of pages that you refer to? I cannot find Template:Ape-related articles. You probably mean template:Apes; if so, that does not cover this subject in the detail that the nominated template does.
      The point is that Great ape language is a discernible topic, and has an extensive "see also" section, which would be better served by a nav template, for which there is no current alternative. – Fayenatic London 12:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I"m sorry about not providing a link; I will in the future. You make a good point, but I just discovered that a Template:Animal language already exists and "great ape language" could be added as a section. I am One of Many (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • First talking gorilla Koko understands more than 1,000 signs based on american sign language, understands approximately 2,000 words of spoken english, uses the language freely and in novel ways, even when there is no foreseeable gratification and inventing new signs. 95.165.163.242 (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* Koko can't talk. Koko can use signs and combinations of as a result of human instruction, but otherwise gorillas can't talk and do not have a natural language. I am One of Many (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also you can't talk. You can use signs and combinations of as a result of human instruction (or as a result of mimic human speech), but otherwise you can't talk. 95.165.165.24 (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think this is a useful complement to the other templates, and the content is too detailed to appear on other animal communication articles e.g. dog communication; therefore I would rename rather than merge. – Fayenatic London 18:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have a problem in principle with renaming it to Template:Great ape language, but that would have to be accompanied by a substantial revision of the template, since only a few of the articles are relevant to language. Keep in mind that the template was created by a user blocked in part for competence and who is likely the IP hopper 95 above who apparently believe some gorillas can talk. I am One of Many (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • almost all scientists (except scientific freaks) believe that all hominidae can talk. 95.165.175.52 (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • What sources do you have? I am only aware of one non-human hominidae that was trained to talk, unless I am getting it confused with a chimpanzee. (That is quite possible.) It did not sound close to human speech. The animal's vocal tract was unable to reproduce many human phonemes, and could only manage representations. If by "talk" you mean communicate, I can start to see your point. For the sake of the template, it would be better to avoid arguing with others, here. It's possible the template could be useful, but it can always be remade under a new name if needed, without this history. I'm leaning towards that solution, which means delete with support for a remake per User:Fayenatic london. If there can be cooperation, it is possible that we could simply edit the template, instead. —PC-XT+ 14:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • what remove out this template (except see also)? 95.165.175.52 (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note IP hopper 95 is likely associated with user:CYl7EPTEMA777 and thus is engaged in block evasion. I am One of Many (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the current sections in the template:
    Main – no longer needed after moving key topic into header
    Notable apes – keep
    Researchers - keep some
    Centres – keep at least 5
    Films – keep
    Other – keep language and book, maybe merge book into films section as "Media"
    See also – keep first 3
    – Fayenatic London 20:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and rework per Fayenatic london —PC-XT+ 21:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Fayenatic London is willing to rework the template, I could support renaming it and reworking it, otherwise it should be deleted. I am One of Many (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2014 (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:Clare-baronies 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) 21:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Clare-baronies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is unused, and is redundant to template:County Clare, which lists the baronies and other types of place in the county. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had originally added parishes to the main template but Banner reverted it. I think Baronies and parishes should either be merged or a template created to combine both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is a separate discussion. Template:Civil parishes of County Clare could be organized by barony, and renamed "baronies and parishes", in which case the baronies could be dropped from template:County Clare. Or the parishes and county templates could be merged. I prefer the former. Either way, this baronies-only one is redundant. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2014 (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:Nihongo foot 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 to delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nihongo foot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I have never heard of this template before despite its 4 years apparently in use on the project. There is no point in placing all of the Japanese text that is intended to accompany English language text in any form of footnote crammed at the end of the article. This is not suggested by any of the manuals of style that it claims to cite as its reasoning for existance. It was created by a single editor in a single edit in 2010 and this editor has since disappeared. All instances of this template should be replaced with the standard {{nihongo}}. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep You're putting this template up to TfD because you haven't seen the template before or if it is acceptable use in the MOS? The template is there to help remove excessive kanji and hepburn that might intrude normal sentence flow without actually removing by making them into footnotes while keeping the proper name in place. Its useful for those who have to navigate through large paragraphs with large ammount of media with alternative Japanese name. Lucia Black (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because it is completely unacceptable by the MOS. There is no purpose in removing this text to the bottom of the page. If you're introducing a Japanese concept mid sentence the original Japanese text goes with it. WP:MOS-JA does not say this is acceptable (it doesn't mention it at all) and there's no longer an MOS on footnotes, for which this content is most likely unacceptable (many people feel footnotes like these are trivial). One person's sudden decision to create a template that has under 50 pages of implimentation is not worth keeping on this project when it flies in the face of common practice.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    1) it doesn't go "against" the MOS-JA. 2) An MOS regarding footnotes is completely unnecessary and does not even bring a valid point. Footnotes are still used throughout wikipedia. 3) The rest is purely opinionated by you. Lucia Black (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No where on MOS-JA or any manual of style on this project is there the suggestion to selectively take Japanese or any language text out of their contextual significance and making a footnotes section out of them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You couldn't bother to ask for consensus if this was indeed something against the principle of the MOSJAPAN? Its a rather useful tool, and it still helpful, its not like the japanese title is removed and the footnote is even named differently so you know that it has its own title. JP is short for Japan like NA is north america. Lucia Black (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    One random person's decision to produce this template and it's minimal level of implimentation show that no one wants to use this other than you and whoever else managed to discover it in the documentation of other templates. And this discussion will deem its usage regardless of whatever WikiProject may feel its useful. I'm done discussing this with you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you're not providing reason why the template should be deleted. You just saw it, reacted to it, and now here we are. Lucia Black (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's of no use, barely used, and against various MOS guidelines. That's my reasoning. I don't know how you missed it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that the template is only being used because you discovered it two weeks ago and implimented it across every article it's currently located.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the only one who used it nor the first, did i discover this template quite recently? yes. but thats my personal disovery, it doesn't change the fact that it is indeed useful. Lucia Black (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is neither barred or encouraged, but helps reduce the clutter caused by successive Japanese text. I see this as the next step A/M articles should take to be more accessible. Why do you get to decide it should not be used? It's similar to stopping me from trying new episode list formats because it deviates from the norm. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If it clutters up the content so much, then maybe you should find another way to post the information that's being obscured like the lengthy titles of every single spinoff media or supporting characters' names that are just mentioned in some other character's section.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We did find a way, you just don't agree with it. This was better off dicsussed in a wikiproject then hastily put to TfD. Lucia Black (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ryulong is currently engaged in a dispute Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:OWN issues on WP:MOS-JA regarding this same issue before this discussion about the footer came up. I recommend Ryu withdraw this nomination and see what the outcome of the issue over at WP:ANI is first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No. This issue is completely unrelated to the ANI thread. As it stands, there is nothing that has been placed or removed from WP:MOS-JA or any other manual of style page that I have had a hand in that regards this particular template. Also, Hijiri88's accusations are unfounded.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Trying to find the original intent of this template, I retrieved the MOS contents from when the links were first added to the documentation: MOS/JAPAN talks about Nihongo and Nihongo2 templates and MOS/Footnotes talks about footnotes in general. (I'll leave the interpretation of original intent, and whether it is still relevant, to someone else, for the moment.) —PC-XT+ 17:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this from the footnote MoS " particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article" would be useful. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but that MOS doesn't exist anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the arguments I feel this should be kept and then put up for discussion on a project page rather than for deletion here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Why?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe it is allowed because per WP:FNNR, the notes section may contain "explanatory footnotes that give information which is too detailed or awkward to be in the body of the article." For the Japanese words/titles, there is a range of detail going from necessary to superfluous. Necessary information can be in-lined, and less necessary can be given in a footnote, and superfluous can be excluded entirely. Additionally, there is a range of awkwardness, from one Nihongo usage to over a dozen. I do not believe that including the Japanese word/title information is against WP:FNNR, and therefore I do not believe the template should be deleted. Also of interest is MOS:FOREIGN and MOS:Ety: "Foreign words should be used sparingly." I consider the number of Nihongo template uses in Rozen Maiden excessive and I think it makes reading the article more difficult by needlessly cluttering the prose, making the presentation awkward in the body of the article. It is a good example where the Japanese should either be removed entirely, or relegated to footnotes per WP:FNNR. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mostly per Odie5533, the line of thinking that it should be deleted because you haven't heard or had a certain level of implementation is silly. There is no standardization of variants of English or references across Wikipedia and this seems to be an attempt for instruction creep by mandating the usage of preferred template. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - is there a way to get this visually jarring deletion notification template off our GAs and such? Eyeshield 21 is really disrupted by this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No. The whole point is that the link be visible.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:11, 13 March 2014 (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.

Ukrainian parliamentary election templates 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) 02:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ukrainian parliamentary election, 1998 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ukrainian parliamentary elections, 1998 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2002 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Theses templates are orphaned. — Petr Matas 11:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all More detailed results present on the relevant articles, and no need to have a separate template that would be used once. Number 57 19:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Keep until further discussion. Yulia Romero manages political articles about Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, what? No-one "manages" articles in a certain area. That's called WP:OWN. Number 57 23:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't WP:OWN them; I don't want too.... It is just that I am one of the very, very, very few people who edit political (Wiki-)articles about Ukraine.... (I am sure that Aleksandr just wanted to wait for my opinion.) (So there is no problem of ownership; there is a problem of not having enough editors.) If the templates are orphaned it is better to delete them. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all Templates are orphaned and info in them is already present in relevant articles. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:26, 10 March 2014 (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/2014_March_9&oldid=1138534038"