Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 8 September 10 >

September 9

[edit]

Template:Doctl

[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 redirect. Ruslik_Zero 14:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated, unused —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:26, 9 September 2010 (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:Uniform polyhedra navigator

[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. Ruslik_Zero 14:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uniform polyhedra navigator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Polyhedra pages are awash with templates and we don't need yet another one. This one is curious in that its implying some sort of sequence to the polyhedron and the rational behind this ordering is not obvious. Salix (talk): 21:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ruslik_Zero 16:11, 9 September 2010 (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:Infobox Australian road

[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 Withdrawn by nom. --Rschen7754 05:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Australian road (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{infobox road}}, which has already been set up for and handles Australian roadways. Imzadi 1979 → 05:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Let us withdraw this TfD for further discussions and consultations for the time being. Imzadi 1979 → 04:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deletion until the concerns raised (and supported by two other editors on the template talkpage) are addressed. Bidgee (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose deletion. Nomination is premature and inappropriate. There is an active discussion at Template talk:Infobox Australian road#Infobox conversion proposal. A nomination should not have been made until such time as the issues raised there have been resolved. --05:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • To summarize, we have one person advocating for a change in header text size, when {{infobox road}} uses the standard header size for infoboxes unlike this template. There is a comment concerning the placement of the marker images, but all other countries' highway articles that use an infobox use the same infobox except Australia. And in those countries, most of them use marker images, which all appear in the same location. (Conversion in the UK is pending with one of the two templates converted now and the second to be done.) That means they all have the same marker/header name orientation, even in places like Alaska where the highway names and highway numbers don't match up and the residents use the names more than the numbers, a situation similar to Australia. The proposal sat dormant, was partially enacted, and then stopped for discussion. After a flurry of discussion, it sat dormant again before moving forward. Each time the conversation has stalled and the conversion has restarted, editors keep popping up the same "issues" that have been discussed. TfD has a 7-day timeframe, so around 5am UTC on September 16, we should have an answer and be able to move forward with that answer, instead of continuous protracted discussion. Imzadi 1979 → 07:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This "summary" doesn't actually reflect the true situation. The proposal was made on a page that isn't watched by anyone and because there was no opposition, the nominator changed every road. (ie it was fully, not partially enacted) It was only then that the proposal was discovered and members of WP:AUSTRALIA alerted.[1][2] The ensuing discussion did stall but started again when the nominator decided he was going to implement the changes again. "Each time the conversation has stalled" is an exaggeration. It has only "stalled" once. "Editors keep popping up the same "issues" that have been discussed" is incorrect. I raised a new issue, that of errors in implementation, only two days ago.[3] This is not an insignificant issue. 373 articles need changing and manual conversion of so many templates is fraught with demonstrated danger. There are concerns about the location of route markers and the size of headings as the significance of these is reversed to what it is in the US. I have concerns over the general layout, as do others. Neither of these issues have been resolved. We have had, so far, only three days of active discussion on this issue. There is no firm consensus to change to {{Infobox road}} as of yet. Nominating the template for deletion in the middle of a discussion when highlighted issues are unresolved is premature and inappropriate. The unresolved issue of layout clearly demonstrates that the reason for nomination is invalid as {{Infobox Australian road}} is not yet redundant to {{infobox road}}. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your objections are not actionable: a) header size is controlled by {{infobox}}, and b) the marker images are in that place in every other country that has infoboxes. --Rschen7754 09:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Highways in Australia a known by name and not route, why should highways be forced to a set infobox (route numbers above the header and I've also noticed no where to add a gazetting date) that has no flexibility? Bidgee (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is not a situation unique to Australia - Alaska and much of Africa are in a similar situation, but still use Infobox road as internationally and locally the route numbers are still referenced quite frequently. --Rschen7754 09:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • What about roads which do not have a consistent route number? Roe Highway for example carries route 3 for its entire length; it carries 94 and 95 for a few kilometres only. Great Eastern Highway when that gets converted will be even more fun as it changes route designation not less than 8 times along its route. I would have thought that placing the route numbers at the top in these sorts of cases gives them a prominence which doesn't match with the facts or a neutral, reliably sourced view of the situation. Orderinchaos 10:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) You folks give me too much credit. I had about one or two dozen articles converted before my eyes glazed over at the computer when the first comments came in and I stopped. There have not been 370 conversions and reversions. Additionally, you don't give me enough credit. With around 50 other templates converted (list available on request) there have been over 1,700 manual article conversions made by myself and others. As for the nomination: any article or any template, etc may be nominated for any applicable deletion process at any time. As Rschen states, at least one of the issues is unresolveable (header size) and the other comes down to a matter of preference. The state of Alaska in the US uses {{infobox road}} and they have a similar situation to Australia where highway names and highway numbers don't align, and the highway names are in primary use. Marker graphics are in the same location there. Australia could simply not display any marker graphics if they so choose. Imzadi 1979 → 09:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why is the header size issue "unresolveable"? I haven't looked at the underlying code but I would assume the obvious solution would be optionalising a fixed parameter, i.e. (in logic terms) "this is the default setting but if the variable is set by the call to the box, then use the override setting instead." Orderinchaos 10:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Rschen7754 - If the problem is not repairable then the template is unsuitable.
          • @Imzadi - Yes, you're correct, it was only 30 articles. There must have been a wikiglitch because when I checked IAR's usage, no articles were shown to be using it. As for not giving you enough credit, one mistake every 30 articles is 12.4 errors over 373. That's really not good enough. We need articles converted consistently. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're welcome to try and convert over 1,000 infoboxes, and I bet that you would make mistakes too. I'm quite shocked that you're this upset about a typo. The fact that you haven't looked at the underlying code makes all the difference - Infobox road calls {{Infobox}} and uses their size for the headers. --Rs chen7754 18:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, that is clearly a fault that the developers of Infobox road are going to have to be creative and think of a solution for, then. "Can't be done" doesn't work in IT, there is always a way. Orderinchaos 22:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • As an aside, relevant to AussieLegend's point about errors, it seems we aren't the only ones being affected by this mad rush to standardisation. Look carefully at current and historical views of N2 road (Ireland), converted recently by Imzadi1979, and notice the obvious omission. Seems to affect a fair few of the Irish primary roads. I think these guys really need to slow down a bit and look at what they're doing more closely. Orderinchaos 23:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Infobox road can handle every function of the Australian infobox, and the UK and Australia are the only two countries that do not use Infobox road (and the UK is being converted as we speak). The process by which this TFD came about is a red herring, the question that should be asked is... should this template be deleted? The answer is a clear yes. --Rschen7754 09:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it doesn't support the way that Australian road infobox is laid out, doesn't have the support of the Australian community. UK has nothing to do with the Australian template. Bidgee (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, Australia road articles have to conform to the standards that other road articles already follow. When Australia's the last on the list to be converted to Infobox road, there's little leeway that can be given, as we already have a working standard that works just fine for all the other countries of the world. There's nothing special about Australian roads that justifies their having their own infobox. --Rschen7754 09:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • (EC) The proposed template does not have to be an exact clone of the previous template's output. It only need to display the same or substantially the same information to be redundant, regardless of exact format. Conversion to the common template will provide display consistency between all of the highway articles on the English Wikipedia. It will also allow an Australian editor, once familiar with the common template, to help edit infoboxes on highway articles in New Zealand (converted) or Papua New Guinea (converted) or any other country because of the common parameters. Imzadi 1979 → 09:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you're confusing objection to process with objection to product. I personally have no objections to the idea of converting Australia's articles to run on a common template. I don't think any of the others do either, when it boils down to it. But it's become clear that there is issues with the implementation which need to be resolved, and people like yourself are simply not listening to the issues. And there has been an element of bad faith and bloodymindedness in some of the approach to this which needs to be dispensed with if we are to get anywhere. Orderinchaos 10:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at this time Highly premature - issues about implementation still being worked out that will likely take longer than the usual TfD conclusion time to figure out. Orderinchaos 10:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not seeing how the issues with implementation can be worked out. --Rschen7754 10:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:CONSENSUS is cornerstone Wikipedia policy. That is being actively determined at the talk page and simply drawing a line under it half way through, putting one's fingers in one's ears and effectively yelling "I didn't hear that" is an unproductive, bad faith and unnecessarily hostile way to conduct a significant change of this kind. Orderinchaos 10:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Any updates to templates or articles need not take place before the conclusion of a TfD. Once closed, any template updates decided at the TfD can be implemented and the articles updated to reflect the decision of the TfD. Many times templates are not orphaned before coming to TfD, but rather after. The decisions here are: "Is {{infobox Australian road}} redundant to {{infobox road}}? If so, are there any specific, actionable changes needed to affect a conversion to orphan {{infobox Australian road}} in preparation for deletion?" The header size "issue" is a red herring, as the size of the text is the standard size for an infobox, and it doesn't affect what information is displayed, only how it is formatted. Secondly, the issue about graphic placement has also been demonstrated to be irrelevant. Other locations have the same or substantially similar situation as Australia, yet still use the same template as the rest of the world. There is nothing inherently unique about Australia's roads that require a different approach to the display of information. In sum, the template is still redundant to {{infobox road}} which can display all of the same information, In fact it can display more since it handles various geographic location types, multi-segmented routes, any number of route markers (the Pennsylvania Turnpike infobox has 5 markers, with the main turnpike marker a a larger size the the others) and it can display the directions next to the termini so that they read "North end/South end" with any combination of directions. Imzadi 1979 → 10:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Seriously, is this too much to ask for? Bidgee (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Translation: if you guys followed through on the changes we are proposing, the entire world's road articles could potentially benefit. I would have thought that was a good thing. As for "multi-segmented routes" one of the biggest weaknesses of the current proposition is that it doesn't!! My two objections, highlighted at Template:Infobox Australian road/sandbox, relate to segmentation and regionalisation. Orderinchaos 22:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • It doesn't... what? As far as your objections, we are trying to work with you, but there are some things that really can't be changed - otherwise it's no longer a standard template. For example, in regards to - "Add an option for the links to be customised at the bottom - "National Highway" and "Freeways in Australia" is silly for a metro road entirely within Perth which is part of neither system, and a link to one of the WA pages (they exist for every state I believe) would be more suitable." - that can be done. Just tell us what you want the links to be, or you are welcome to edit the page yourself. --Rschen7754 00:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • The links for WA should be List of major roads in Perth, Western Australia and List of major roads in rural Western Australia (those pages are on my list to rework as I don't like the design, but they are complete and contain all relevant information). I don't know what they'd be for other states, and don't honestly have the time to look. As for multi-segmented routes - we have already highlighted several cases where routes are discontinuous on a named road; your only suggestion in response is to reduce the information available to readers! For so long as this particular problem remains unaddressed, the ground for deletion, that this template is "redundant", is false, as the Australian template currently does something that the generic does not. And I can't imagine that Australia is the only country with named roads and discontinuous routes, so by fixing this, it'll probably be of global benefit. Orderinchaos 00:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • See Indiana State Road 4 for how the standard template does discontinuous, segmented routes, complete with lengths, separate termini and the whole nine yards. It will do up to 4 such segments, all with a separate name and header, something that IAR does not do. Imzadi 1979 → 01:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Somewhat different problem as that's under a single route shield as you can see at the top (the type of segmentation I'm referring to involves changes in routes and is currently managed by IAR - see Bruce Highway for a current example). Thanks for drawing my attention to that feature though, I can think of several roads I could use that sort of segmentation on. Orderinchaos 03:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - support template standardisation. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at least until some good faith attempts are made to address the concerns of local editors about the move. Effectively ignoring these concerns seems counter productive to me. It is not the proponents of Infobox road who maintain the articles on Australian roads but, rather, local editors and I would expect the local editors would have a better idea about the infobox requirements for Australian road articles than those who live 10,000 km away and have shown zero interest in Australian road articles in the past. I would have thought that listening to and addressing these concerns as part of any change would get a better result that ramming the change down local editors throats and telling them that they don't know what they are talking about. Finally, as a general rule, I am opposed to mandating the use of large universal infoboxes such as "Infobox road" and "Infobox settlement". Where a local project has the scale and the ability to maintain their own templates, reflecting local conditions, then they should be encouraged to do so. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you realize that as of next week, Australia will be the only country with its own template? --Rschen7754 21:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you realise that that is only because you guys aren't listening and if you worked with us rather than acting like a big bully there wouldn't need to be an Australian template? Do you also realise that there is nothing in policy precluding regional templates to meet regional needs? Orderinchaos 22:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What does it matter if Australia has its own template? It's not true that Australia is the only country anyway. The US has plenty of its own templates that are being forced on other countries under the guise of standardisation (sorry, standardization). As OIC has indicated, there is nothing in policy that requires such standardisation. However, there is plenty that indicates that different standards for different regions is quite acceptable. This would seem to be one of those cases. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, so WOS knew of a way to customize the header size, but the links at the bottom were already customized through {{infobox road/browselinks/AUS}} and by editing that template, are further customizable. As for it being the only country, 9 months ago, there was {{infobox road}}, a few mutli-segment specific variants for US states, and templates for Brunei Darussalam, Europe, France (3), Greece, India (4), Indonesia, Iran (4), Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Luxembourg, Malaysia (5), Morocco (2), New Zealand (2), Ontario, Pakistan (2), Papua New Guinea, Poland, Singapore, Spain (3), Thailand (2), Turkey, United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom (2). The two German templates were converted to translation matrices like the second Italian template, and a Taiwanese template was converted slightly to separate the infobox from the junction list per the MOS. So yes, once the second UK template is converted, Australia is the last country with a specialized template, instead of using a single template. A single template, that I might add was updated for accessibility and MOS concerns, and extended through subtemplates to support the above countries. It was previously in use for the US, Canada, Mexico, South Africa, Greece, Japan, Taiwan, Kenya, Antarctica and several South American countries. Imzadi 1979 → 00:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oddly enough, given the updates you have mentioned, until this process (a deletion request!) commenced, there was an abject refusal from anyone concerned to modify the template for Australia. I'm glad that that's now happening (although I suspect this may only be because of the failure of the TfD and wouldn't otherwise have been contemplated) and if the points raised by the Australian contributors are actioned then I will be happy to support merging. BTW, there seems to be some problems on the Irish ones that you should look at - the italics no longer make sense without the note that was in their former template. Orderinchaos 00:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've now also moved the road name to the top of the infobox only for AUS roads and currently just in the sandbox version. See Template:Infobox Australian road/sandbox for a demo. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Orderinchaos, with these guys you have to stand firm... they don't like compromise. If it isn't done the American way then they aren't happy. It's been an uphill struggle to actually get them to incorporate the UK aspects of the infobox. Seems that they are slowly learning that they can't get their own way worldwide though! Jeni (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I can't help noting that one way to quickly end any thread on this discussion is to mention the problems with the Irish infobox conversion. They seem to not want to talk about that at all. Orderinchaos 06:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • If you could keep the politics out of this, that would help the discussion. As far as Ireland, I'm not sure what you're implying. I personally didn't do the Ireland conversions. Also, most of the Ireland comments were made today or yesterday, and Imzadi1979 is out of town today, and much of my energy has been spent buying furniture and getting ready to move while planning other events for next week. So Wikipedia's been a lower priority today - if anything, I'm trying to avoid added stress on Wikipedia for now. --Rschen7754 06:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • As far as Jeni's comment, I think it's definitely inflammatory and unnecessary, and assumes bad faith, but considering our history (especially my history) with this editor, my initial reaction would have been inappropriate and uncivil, so I decided to keep my silence. --Rschen7754 06:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until all the concerns raised by local editors are actioned. Standardising templates is one thing, steamrolling the American way of doing things is another (yes, it has happened to other countries) Jeni (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Mattinbgn. The lack of any consultation with the editors affected, and the ignoring and trivialisation of legitimate concerns from Australian editors is highly regrettable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, the above discussion indicates that there seems to be some systemic bias and geographic imbalance concerns to be addressed with {{Infobox road}} before we can reconsider merging the Australian template. These issues relate to WP:NPOV which takes precedence over WP:CONSENSUS, the useful goal of a common road infobox, or even the dreaded WP:STEAM. Dl2000 (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2010 (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:Science in Pakistan

[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. Ruslik_Zero 14:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Science in Pakistan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I hardly believe that any of these things listed in the template belong in the category of science. They belong to other fields like economy, geography, history and culture but not science. We have Template:Pakistan topics to serve us with better navigation of the country. Nominated by Farjad0322 (talk|contribs). It originally signed my name when I moved it out of the arrows that were hiding the nomination. Courcelles 03:48, 9 September 2010 (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/2010_September_9&oldid=1085548890"