Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 7

July 7Edit

Template:Monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protestsEdit

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

No objection to the content, but I think there are organizational problems caused by enthusiastic additions over a short period of time. We already have List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests which should have the same content, but which also includes monuments without Wikipedia articles, and explanatory notes. In the short term, it's difficult to maintain two lists (I didn't even know about the template until just now). In the long term, it just seems redundant. Instead of letting readers click to open the collapsed template, it makes more sense to me to let them click to go to the full list page. Beland (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, particularly the part that says that these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. gobonobo + c 00:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, templates, lists, and categories are three different stand-alone ways of classifying Wikipedia's topic collections. A template is not a list, and visa versa. This template is fine, and covers the subject well. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per Randy. These all serve useful purposes.--Tom (LT) (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep, organizational tool. ɱ (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep as a useful navigational tool, per Randy Kryn and Ɱ. -- The Anome (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This 100% needs cleaning. It is true that a navigational template is not a list, but then it also should not be presented as a list, which this template clearly fails as attempting to micromanage how the statues are placed here (down to the state and even sub-state regional level). Leave the list to take care of that and remove the micromanagement. (I'm sure we can think of more-intelligent group names.) --Izno (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    I'll bump this !vote up to a delete. The previous discussion is entirely unpersuasive. If we want to get into the nitty gritty, this navbox fails criteria 3 and 5 in WP:NAVBOX, making it obvious that it is not a good navbox. --Izno (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete: navboxes aren't well-suited to displaying the complexity of the information we want to convey here. A List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests link under "See also" allows users to see the broader context if they wish and, as Beland says, helps maintain consistency. — Bilorv (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per previous arguments.— Crumpled Firecontribs 23:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not relate to a single, coherent subject per WP:NAVBOX. While many of these statues did indeed depict historical figures strongly associated with slavery, colonialism, and/or secession, others merely stood in the wrong place at the wrong time. Clearly such a list requires additional context that neither a navbox nor a category can offer. Speedy keep the article. ―cobaltcigs 17:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
The common thread here is that these were all removed during or due to the George Floyd protests. More context is provided on individual articles and in the list. gobonobo + c 21:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:36, 7 July 2020 (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).

Template:Music erasEdit

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).

The result of the discussion was Rename. There are several arguments at play here; some of which have come to a consensus and others not. There is a consensus that {{Music eras}} should not be the name since the template is only concerned with Western music. There was not much discussions about where to move the page, but {{Western classical music eras}} which is the current sidebar title seems like the closest to a consensus. Feel free to open a requested move if this name isn't satisfactory. There was also a discussion about whether or not to include ancient and prehistoric eras and there is a rough consensus for including them. Finally we have the proposal to delete the template with the most prominent argument for deletion being redundancy with {{History of Western art music}}. Here no consensus was found and I would recommend starting a merge proposal if further discussion on the topic is desired. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

There are four important reasons this template should be deleted:

  1. It is extremely eurocentric in being labeled as "music eras" but having almost only Western Classical music eras.
  2. The inclusion of Prehistoric and Ancient eras is pointless and out of place. Prehistoric and Ancient music are worldwide periods and not related to the European-based Western Classical music in any direct way other than also being music.
  3. It seems to oversimplify the better made and clearer History of Western art music template.
  4. The previously mentioned History of Western art music template is used on almost all the same pages as the one up for deletion, making having both redudent. - Aza24 (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment: One can still use the numbered list using indentations, thus ":1." and ":2." could be written ":#". Hyacinth (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Hyacinth Ah good point, thanks! Aza24 (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment: A flaw within a template is a reason to fix the template, not a reason to delete. Do you think they had music in Europe before classical music? Hyacinth (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Hyacinth: Because fixing it wouldn't make sense. Now that you've changed the name to "Western classical music eras," Prehistoric and Ancient music would have to removed as they are not "Western classical music eras." After that we would need to address the inclusion of the Galant era. If the Galant era is in the template than other equally as important minor movements would have to be included, such as Ars nova and Impressionism. If all the minor movements to the level of Galant era are included then the template would basically become the History of Western art music template. If the Galant era is removed than this template would still oversimplify musical periods and be redundant to the History of Western art music template that is used on all the same pages as it. If fixing was an option then it would certainly be my first choice, but in this case it doesn't seem to one. Aza24 (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Aza24 and Jerome Kohl: I haven't voted yet, so I don't need convincing that my vote should change. I find the argument that a template should present music as if it didn't exist until Europeans invented it in 500 AD to be highly ethnocentric. Hyacinth (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@Hyacinth: Um I wasn't trying to "convince you that your vote should change" I was addressing a comment that you made towards me. ("A flaw within a template is a reason to fix the template, not a reason to delete.") I really don't understand where you're going with this. Of course they had music before 500 AD. However, Prehistoric and Ancient music are not "Western classical music eras," it's as simple as that. "Western classical music" began with the medieval era in c. 500 AD. I think you're mixing up "Western classical music" with "European Music" but even if this template was labeled "European Music" or something along this lines, it still wouldn't make sense, Prehistoric and Ancient music are terms for a global period of music, not for Western classical music or European music. Prehistoric music simply refers to the music around the world of preliterate cultures and Ancient music refers to music around the world of literate ancient cultures, they are hardly "eras" in the sense of Baroque and Classical and definitely not eras or parts of "Western classical music" and "European Music". Aza24 (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@Aza24: A misspelling of a a word in a template, for example, is a reason to correct the spelling, not to delete the template. It's fairly simple actually, something about babies and bathwater. Hyacinth (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep with retitled name (history of Western music periods). In my opinion this makes navigation much easier, and the inclusion of prehistoric music etc. is useful for context. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Tom (LT): context of what? Prehistoric music and Ancient music doesn't directly lead to Western Classical Medieval music whatsoever. The Medieval era (Aka the beginning of Western Classical Music) began with sacred Christian music, Christianity didn't even exist for most of the Ancient era and for all of the Prehistoric era... Ancient and Prehistoric music are not "Western Classical Music Eras" so why would they be in a template of "Western Classical Music eras"? If they were removed then we would run into the problem I illustrated above with this template becoming overly simplistic and redundant. Aza24 (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Context of time, as it provides historical perspective and, as a reader, I find it useful. You make a good point about the title that could be improved. I think this template should be retained and some sort of good title can be found. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I am failing to see why the correct improvement is not add articles from other regions of the world that might be of interest. Can you explain why that seems to have been entirely excluded in your original premise? --Izno (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Izno: Admittedly, I'm a little confused with what you're asking. At the moment this template is for "Western Classical Music Eras", that was clearly the original intent even before the renaming, otherwise it would not have only included European eras. I truly don't understand what is so confusing here, Prehistoric and Ancient music are neither western and hardly eras, this template is only used on the same pages as the more thorough History of Western art music... that alone is reason enough for deletion. If you're asking why this template shouldn't be altered to represent the complete history of music, I don't think any templates on Wikipedia exist for the entire history of a subject, whether that be Music, Art, Science or Math – probably because they would be too massive in scope and largely unhelpful. Aza24 (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Original intent is irrelevant? The point of changing the name is to expand the intent. So why not do that? As for its apparent current duplication, this one points to fewer pages, so it might be used as a 'summary' navigational box to point to those as well as others. No, I am not asking for the entire history of music; I am asking about why we have not added articles like Traditional Japanese music. Please don't set up strawmen. --Izno (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Izno: I apologize about my defensiveness. In the case of adding something like Traditional Japanese music, what would the template then be renamed? And how would such a template not simply turn into the entire history of music? Aza24 (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Well, instead of linking every article currently in Template:History of Western art music, you could link the same links as are in the headers and then add to those. I suggested traditional Japanese music but that's not a requirement by any means. --Izno (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:17, 7 July 2020 (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).

Template:Ginga-yaEdit

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This navbox has only 3 entries, and the main subject of it is not even notable enough for its own article. The entries are for productions of TV series made over a decade ago, and there will be no more in the future, making this template nearly useless. 11:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. There is no clear reason why this particular navbox needs to link those articles, as opposed to via article space or other means. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2020 (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).

Template:Infobox Brazilian CarnivalEdit

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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus but feel free to refactor it to use an infobox module Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Brazilian Carnival with Template:Infobox recurring event.
limited use navbox would better be in the context of the broad recurring event template. Izno (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  • oppose it gets impractical if everything is merged into 1 template. Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Replace with recurring event. If needed, a discussion should be started later about adding new parameters to the infobox. These shouldn't get a "free pass". The problem with having a unique infobox for every single "thing" is that design and content can run wild, while using a shared infobox puts boundaries on editors with what can be added to an infobox. The carnival staff section is completely trivial, as can be seen in an article like Portela (samba school) which has unlinked names which aren't even mentioned once in the article. Another article Acadêmicos do Grande Rio uses "Queen of Battery" but the article does not mention it once, but does mention "Queen of the Drums Sections". If this is the same thing, it still has an issue with the infobox listing 1 person while the article listing 4. Paolla Oliveira which is the one listed in the infobox, has an article, but that article does not even mention this "role". Showing how trivial it is. --Gonnym (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge WP:INFOCOL. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • refactor as an infobox module. I would rather not see everything from the Carnival template merged into recurring event. Frietjes (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose goal of infoboxes are too dissimilar. Royalbroil 00:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • refactor as an infobox module per above. No need to saddle everone else with this IBox's particularities. Mangoe (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2020 (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).

Template:Greenlandic dogsEdit

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete, navbox with a single linked page, Greenland Dog, that breed is already covered in Template:Danish dogs. Cavalryman (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. I councur that it is preferable to cover the topic in Template:Danish dogs. --Bsherr (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - Greenland is a territory of Denmark. I have had much do with the Greenland dog article, but support the deletion of this template with only one entry. William Harris talk  07:39, 7 July 2020 (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).

Template:Grand Ducal Family of TuscanyEdit

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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 July 15. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:01, 15 July 2020 (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).

Template:S-Bahn-LémanEdit

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Template for creating links to an S-Bahn network that doesn't exist anymore. There are two networks in the Geneva-Lausanne area now, the Léman Express and RER Vaud. The latter has existed for a couple of years, the former since late 2019, and there was some conflation of the two until now. Both have fully-developed adjacent stations modules, and there's no need for this template which is in any case out of date. Mackensen (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2020 (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).

Template:PaschaEdit

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Unused, and redundant since functionality contained within Template:Calendar date. Bsherr (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete as unused and redundant. --Gonnym (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2020 (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).