Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 18

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

October 18 edit

Template:Convertx 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 template and all subpages. 28bytes (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

part of an old test, now unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: There are 51 subpages (subtemplates) by name pattern Template:Convertx/[1]. Being subtemplates, and by old Convert code setup, these pages all follow the outcome of this TfD. -DePiep (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, a test for deprecated versions. -DePiep (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an old test Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The new module has eliminated any use for this old experiment. Jimp 02:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I get the impression that {{Convert/lengthcalc}} is an abandoned testsite too, fit for tfd. Am I right? -DePiep (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unused, abandoned, obsolete test —PC-XT+ 03:57, 21 October 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:Convert/fast 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. 28bytes (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Convert/fast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

part of an old test, now unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. -DePiep (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an editing test Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another unused and abandoned old experiment. Jimp 04:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unused, abandoned, obsolete test —PC-XT+ 04:02, 21 October 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:Wikiproject enviorment 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 delete - this should have been handled via {{db-author}} tags. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikiproject enviorment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was created because I want to host a WikiProject but I wanted to delete it since that wikiproject is a copy of another wikiproject. Wikipedian 2 04:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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:Kennedy family 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) 22:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kennedy family (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With templates existing for John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Ted Kennedy, I'm not seeing how this is needed. Some of this just repeats content found there, the rest is not (in comparison) prominently featured in the family. If anything, simply having a link to Kennedy family in those templates would be enough. I say delete this. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Keep
I'm not usually a delete voter, but this one seems like a reasonable delete. The template starts with Joe and Rose Kennedy, and not with a long-ancestor list (which would have made it more interesting and keepable), and it mainly includes the family members already listed on the three Kennedy brothers' templates. So sure, deep seven this one. Randy Kryn 11:15 19 October, 2014 (UTC)
Randy Kryn, I have formatted this contribution into a clear delete. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I read. -DePiep (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, seems fine, although I'm not as sure as I was before (noticed more ancestors on the template than I thought). Randy Kryn 11:48 21 October, 2014 (UTC)
The template, if improved just a little, would cover some of the main objections some editors have. With all the activity going on with the Kennedy family listing (family tree, etc.) it might be better to see where everything lands right now before deep-sixing it, so I'll change to a 'Keep' vote for now. Randy Kryn 23:06 21 October, 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Without it, even article Kennedy family would not have an overview or tree! At Rosemary Kennedy it strikes me as odd that the three son's templates are there, but would not have the larger tree either. Also, the lesser Kennedies in politics (ambassador, California) would be isolated wrt family navigation. I'd say this: since we do have articles on non-office Kennedies, and we do acknowledge this family ties thing, we can note the family tree. It does not sound encyclopedic to me if these ties are removed because of reasons like "the US is by merites and family ties don't really matter" (allow me this shortcut). On a personal note: whenever a Kennedy name appears in the news, I'd like to check the its position in the tree: how far from JFK it this one? I bet, about a million readers are doing the same. -DePiep (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rosemary would be included for those three templates as a sibling, and so would the Kennedy children who went into politics. There was a bloodline list at "Kennedy family" page, but a user named Surtsicna removed it as insufficiently referenced. If needed, I could open up a discussion there for determining inclusion/exclusion. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And then there's this: {{Kennedy family tree}} which does the 'Family tree' thing quite well. I haven't seen it used much, but haven't looked at its page links as yet. Randy Kryn 11:33 20 October, 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand these responses yet. Do we want a family tree in those articles, or not? If yes, then what form (e.g., navbox=this template, a section, different per family member article, ...)? -DePiep (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The family tree 'template' I listed above is not collapsible, so it would be hard to put on the pages although it could be a 'See also' link on all of them. If there is no objection or other ideas I'll put that one on the Kennedy articles See also listings, and maybe it should be put on as-is on 'The Kennedy Family' page. Randy Kryn 16:08 20 October, 2014 (UTC)
Have just added 'The Kennedy family tree' link to the large tree-template to 'Above' on the Kennedy family template, giving it a little more value. Randy Kryn 16:35 20 October, 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I object. But first this: so you say that a tree should be on all family member articles indeed (we agree then). From this point onward, I state that that tree should be a navbox, the navbox discussed here. Really, that is what navboxes are about, and I don't see why a Kennedy should have a section about that extended family. Maybe edits are needed, but that's no reason for deletion. Also, with a family navbox on their pages, the three brothers's navboxes could be reduced to contain own family only, not the extended family. The tree template {{Kennedy family tree}} (not a navbox; and IMO a horror to grasp) could rightly be a section in Kennedy family, and maybe in Joseph's as top member. -DePiep (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the ec: it may well be added to the article, as a section (some data in the tree is missing though). In general, we don't link to templates directly from articles.
But let's not get distracted. How about this navbox? -DePiep (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A horror it be, aye, and the coding is hard to figure out in order to fix it (needs JFK Jr., etc.). It's not really a template, in the sense of the word, but a page listed as a template, so at some point I'll see if it fits easily into See also or family sections. I'd say the extended family list on the brother's templates is still relevant, as all presidential and other major templates have extended and important family members, who are part of the person's overall story. And so far, it seems, the Kennedy family template isn't receiving a clear consensus among only the three of us, let alone other people who may like or dislike it, but haven't noticed it's up for deletion - but I'm new to these type of votes and discussions. Randy Kryn 17:40 20 October, 2014 (UTC)
OT again: about {{Kennedy family tree}}. It is too bad for article space now (Edward Kennedy married to Robert Shriver jr.? lol). However, I'm working on this one in the sandbox. Should be fit for the K. Family page. -DePiep (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This indented subthread is closed, getting too far off. Please start a new "discuss" bullet entry if you want to say something OT. Responses to my original post here "delete" are still welcome (do outdent). -DePiep (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me re-describe my thoughts & opinions.
1. We have this navbox {{Kennedy family}}, and the Big Three navboxes {{JFK}}, {{Bobby}}, and {{Ted}}. These are WP:navigation templates, they have tasks: provide overview of wikipages in the topic. (So it has bluelinks only, it lists all or most inter-related pages, it gives overview of the topic, a reader would very likely jump from article A to article B, etc). As such a navbox is not part of the article, it is not part of encyclopedic content (a bit like the lefthand side toolbox is not), it is not even printed. All this is from the guideline for navigation templates, not my opinion.
2. Also, this week the template {{Kennedy family tree}} was recreated (by me) and added to Kennedy family. This tree is article content, describing the family as a reader might expect to find in the article. It does not do the job of "wiki navigation" properly (it fails many navbox requirements, as you can check). I conclude that this tree is not a navigation tool, it is article content (nice and useful there, I think). But it can not replace any navbox.
3. Now what about the 1+3 navboxes mentioned? In short: the JFK navbox is to navigate that person's articles, no more -- no less. But for his daughter Caroline, who has a career & family by herself, this is not enough. She is not just "the daughter of", and JFK's career articles (some 75% of his navbox) have nothing to do with her. And this Kennedy (nephew) is even further away from JFK. Why would there be any JFK/Bobby/Ted navbox on his page? Or great-grandfather, is related to say JFK's army connections? Would a reader likely A-B jump from his page to Eroni Kumana? Not for the reader. I conclude that those Big Tree navboxes are only to be put in their directly related pages.
4. Note that we have some 80 articles on the general Kennedy family (not counting those on JFK, Bobby and Ted). That's 80 pages potentially to be navigated without a first connection to those three ( = where the Big Three navboxes would be inappropriate). Still they are notable, and they are related to the general Kennedy family. It is for such pages that we need a separate navbox, a Kennedy-general. This is why I want to keep this navbox, as a navbox. (This does not mean that the navbox should mention & be used re all those 80 pages).
5. Improve navboxes (This point is about possible future navbox changes; it is not an argument for/against deletion but it shows a wider picture on how we can use them). There is the question left: "which pages to include in a navbox, and in which navbox exactly?". This is a grey area indeed, but that's not a reason for deletion. We'll can work that out in talks & edits, as always. In this Kennedy situation, we should reconsider the overlapping set of family links in the navboxes. (Names that are in JFK box and in Kennedy family box). Maybe this: the JFK navbox has his own family (parents, wife, children; 7 persons only). This box is then put on all these pages and no other Kennedy's (with the family navbox below). OTOH, the general Kennedy navbox (we're talking about) mentions and shoudl be added to: all family members, including the children in law (like Edwin Schlossberg). This has some completeness. It (1) prevents mentioning a large family in the JFK-navbox, and at the same time (2) prevents mention JFK's career on far-away pages. So we should reconsider which names are used in the Big Three navboxes (reduce), and use navboxes only on articles mentioned. (In other words: have links in the JFK-navbox strongly connected internally, and put those loosely connected in a satellite. The opposite is a compromise mixture I do not like) Technically we could put the Family navbox into JFK's as a subbox (example). Maybe I'll make a demo for this.
6. I conclude, again: we Keep the Kennedy navbox as a WP:navbox, and use this general Kennedy Family navbox for all members considered "part of the extended family". Navboxes for the three brothers should be aligned in some sensible way with this one. -DePiep (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Created {{this}} rough demo (this version), that shows how we could merge the Robert Ted (Edward) + Family navboxes.
Now, those persons close to Ted get his navbox, and far-away family members like Patrick Kennedy (1823–1858), get the bare but still complete {{Kennedy family}}. -DePiep (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC) -DePiep (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Between this and {{Kennedy family tree}}, it's redundant to have both. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... except that one is not a WP:NAVBOX, and does not fit in a navbox. Even the image of it, File:Kennedy family tree.png (we can make those name boxes clickable), is too big or illegible in a navbox. It's not that I would be unwilling to make it, it is that I can't see how ever the tree can be in {{navbox}} format & function. (Please take a good look at that WP:NAVBOX page. If you have ideas, I'd like read them somewhere). -DePiep (talk) 08:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is definitely a keep. Nothing more should need to be said. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 15:46, 26 October 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_October_18&oldid=1131475416"