Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 December 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 9 December 11 >

December 10

[edit]

Template:Lincoln cabinet sidebar

[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. It was merged with the article with this edit Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lincoln cabinet sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Template:Lincoln cabinet sidebar appears to have been rendered obsolete by the Template:Infobox U.S. Cabinet. The latter template is used in nearly all the articles on U.S. Presidents. I have noticed a few articles on U.S. presidents that use a different template. Consequently, I am reviewing all the president articles to find the outliers that are not yet using the Template:Infobox U.S. Cabinet.

Only six users have edited this template since it was created on October 7, 2010‎, not including myself. I have notified all users that have contributed edits to the template. The following users have been notified:

Please share your thoughts on the proposed deletion. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 07:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong venue. Templates go to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(So moved. Rich Farmbrough, 00:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC).)[reply]
Yes indeed, but I have no objection to merging the content to the article, using the standard infobox. Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 11 December 2012 (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:Cite video

[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 to {{cite AV media}} with a redirect rather than deleting. Since redirects are cheap, and since some of the opposers had concerns that AV media is harder to remember and type than the shorter names, perhaps the redirect will make this easier for folks, since you can still use the redirect. delldot ∇. 04:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite video (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is for video and audio works; propose to rename to cite media cite AV media to make this more clear by moving with redirect. 9048 current uses. — Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

support is for "Template:cite AV media". --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC) —Updated to add "AV", since "cite audio" redirects to "cite video" and "cite news" is already established separately for newspapers. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMPORTANT—This is a Template for discussion, not a category rename. Doesn't that make the above supports/renames somewhat invalid?? --Funandtrvl (talk)
LOL!! Thanks for the clarity! --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the "cite audio" template redirects to this one, the "cite video" template. I think the idea is to have the least amount of templates out there, doing the most possible with each template. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A frequently asked question by neophytes is what CS1 template to use for audio sources. When we tell then {{cite video}}, the reactions are obvious. I also plan to do some enhancement down the road. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the nomination explanation was very terse, and did not clearly state the rationale involving newbies. IMHO nobody suggests 'video' for 'audio'. We suggest {{cite audio}} (162) or {{cite media}} (78), it redirects to {{cite video}} (9058), and then new editors understand that the templates would have been similar anyways. Flipping the names of 'media' and 'video' is somewhat sensible, IMHO, but it's too late for this !vote (since the premise was changed during !voting). Audio sources aren't used very often, anyways. If you feel strongly about this, I recommend withdrawing this one, and starting over with "swapping 'media' and 'video'" as the proposal. --Lexein (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:ADBA Australian Men's Team roster

[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. No objections. Lots of input not needed at TFD. delldot ∇. 04:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ADBA Australian Men's Team roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

effectively unsourced template (roster link does not link to a roster, nor can I find a roster on that site) with only red links. All red links are unlikely to get links to noteworthy players. The Banner talk 20:06, 10 December 2012 (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 East Asian name

[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 it at this point, defaulting to keep. Per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, I have discounted the "POV delete" rationales because of the "sort" option - even assuming that its use is improperly indicated in the instructions, that would be a reason to change the instructions, not to delete the template. There is general agreement (in both "keep" and "delete" comments) that the current template should be replaced with something, but I don't see consensus there either, as there are three possible replacements that are proposed: the development of a subtemplate, a supertemplate, and/or a set of modular templates. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox East Asian name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A large number (most?) of the 144 transclusions of {{Infobox East Asian name}} seem to be on articles which are not about names, but about subjects which happen to be East Asian, and where more suitable infoboxes (for places, organisations , etc) exist (see, for example, Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905). Some, like Rumi Suizu, have two infoboxes; the subject specific one could perhaps use the East Asian name as a subtemplate. And do we need it for name articles? What should we do about the other cases? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and convert into inline style.218.250.158.14 (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need to stop special-casing East Asia when it comes to translations. Excising the project of this particular non-standard, redundant bit of spaghetti code would be a good bit of progress in that regard. There's no need to convert this, as the transclusions already include what translations / transliterations are actually important in the leads. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are special reasons to "special-case East Asia"n names, because of the nature of Chinese characters, with their different variants based on time and place, and their varying romanizations for different readings, and extensive re-borrowing, such as to Chinese from Japanese. For example, Sun Yat-sen has six different names because on Chinese naming customs; emperors might have even more. Why not just homogenize everything to "Yat-sen"? Because many sources outside Wikipedia do not use that spelling, especially Chinese sources who may consider it not reverent or not conforming to standard Chinese orthography. Also, because of the lack of tonal spelling in English-language rendering of Chinese names, conventional spelling alone (without the accompanying Chinese characters or proper romanization) makes verifying identity and finding sources difficult. The East Asian naming templates are used in addition to, and not instead of, infoboxes for biographies, etc, and only in the cases where inline description would put in too much clutter. Shrigley (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This template was created to privilege Korean-language names over Japanese and Chinese, when the topic of the article is germane to all three. In that case, if one needed all three languages represented, use of the extended Chinese infobox is customary. Shrigley (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this template is the allegedly non-neutral one and {{Infobox Chinese}} is more NPOV as you imply ... then why is it that this template has a "sort" parameter allowing you to put any language that you want first, whereas Infobox Chinese is in fixed order and its "showflag" parameter which highlights certain romanisations at the top is only available for Sinitic languages and not non-Sinitic languages? Additionally you'll note that this is used in cases where a Chinese name is not germane at all to the subject, like Sakhalin Koreans, Alexei Tikhonov La Pérouse Strait, and ... eh, Juris Razgulajevs (but hey, he's Latvian? Clearly this infobox was created by Russian nationalists for the purpose of privileging Russian names over Baltic ones!) cab (call) 19:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • this template has a "sort" parameter allowing you to put any language that you want first wrong. Look at the documentation: this template forbids the placing of Chinese at the top, under the rationale that Infobox Chinese exists. Therefore, it is an anti-Chinese template, used in articles that often pertain to Chinese topics, but in which the user wants to avoid putting the Chinese at top (ex. Chunghwa TV, Chinese people in Korea, Chinese people in Japan). This is only a problem because the name "East Asian" presumes broadness and neutrality, which "Chinese" doesn't. Reminder: we are discussing this "Infobox East Asian" template here, not other templates with separate histories, much higher transclusion, and clearer scope. Shrigley (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, clearly the only reason I put the Korean name first on Chinese people in Korea and Chinese people in Japan is because I'm a self-hating anti-Chinese hanjian and bangzi-wannabe. It has nothing to do with the existence of a legitimate debate on immigration articles at large about whether the language of the host country or the language of the source country is more relevant, nor the idea that making an extra effort to avoid any appearance of partiality to my own ethnic group might be a good idea in an environment ridden with idiotic POV wars (in which I have mercifully been able to avoid much participation by this very expedient).
Also, if you seriously think Infobox East Asian was created for the purpose of promoting a Korean nationalist point of view, you should have a chat with the non-Korean-speaking British film buff who created it and put it into use on most articles in the first place. In fact, though I favour deleting this template just like everyone else here and wish for a better solution on the few articles where I ended up using it, I'd be interested in PC78's opinion about what should be done, but regretfully these days he's typically only active once every few weeks so I don't know whether we'll hear from him in time.
And finally, this is a Wikipedia discussion, not a court of law. The topic of all Wikipedia discussion is "how to improve Wikipedia", and we'll discuss whatever templates we please. cab (call) 06:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with {{Infobox Chinese}} for NPOV if this template was created to privilege Korean-language names over Japanese and Chinese. Because {{Infobox Chinese}} was apparently created to privilege Chinese-language names over Japanese and Korean. Or ...
  • Rename to {{Infobox Korean}} for use of Korean articles.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with {{Infobox Chinese}}, per Phoenix7777 (though obviously that latter one will take more time to gather consensus). Godawful attempts at pan-linguistic infoboxes putting every language in the world in One Infobox To Rule Them All are both technically flawed and inherently POV — especially when one language is fixed at the top of the infobox (which is at least not a deficiency of Infobox East Asian, for all its other flaws).
    As suggested by the nominator, individual embeddable subtemplates would be a better route going forward. A box should cover one language and do it well, like {{Infobox Korean name}}, rather than two dozen languages poorly. Another advantage of this approach: sorting names from multiple languages into the order of greatest relevance to the subject (or, of course, the order imposed by ArbCom after the 100th edit war) would simply be a matter of moving the individual language infoboxes around between, e.g. the "module1" to "module6" parameters of Infobox Person, rather than some obscure and difficult-to-maintain template-specific code. cab (call) 19:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your argument seems like a contradiction, because you oppose Infobox Chinese yet actually favor language infoboxes like "Infobox Korean" or "Infobox Persian". Nevermind the fact that IB Chinese is not the subject of this discussion: there are unique and legitimate reasons for the inclusion of some non-sinitic features. For example, there used to be an infobox just for Singapore subjects that would often have Chinese (multiple varieties), Malay, and Indian names, all mandated by the government. This was merged into IB Chinese, which considering the language status in Singapore, it's uncontroversial that Chinese comes first. There are also topics in Chinese Buddhism that require Sanskrit, Tibetan, etc.
      My point is that there are legitimate, Chinese-unique reasons for that template to have the remit that it does: it makes no pretense at being a "pan-linguistic" template. The problem with this "Infobox East Asian" template is that its name and description implies that it is a fair and neutral choice, but actually places Korean on top by default and forbids the sorting of Chinese on top. Korean already has its own template; this faux-"East Asian" template is actually an "extended Korean" template, which we don't need. Shrigley (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I favour infoboxes for individual languages or macrolanguages or dialects with armies and navies or whatever. And I favour not duplicating code between templates. That means, roughly speaking, an Infobox Chinese which covers Sinitic languages, and is embeddable so that it can be inserted in an Infobox Person in whatever order is determined to be appropriate by an individual article's editors. Plus an Infobox Malay with a field for Jawi alphabet and the various historical Brahmic scripts that can be used where appropriate. Plus an Infobox Tamil that can be used on all Tamil-related articles, not just in Singapore but say also in Sri Lanka (for which we may also need an Infobox Sinhala and several dozen ANI threads about which goes first — but at least those won't involve edits to template code). Plus the use where relevant of Infobox Korean, rather than Infobox Chinese's comparatively impoverished set of hangul/hanja/mr/rr fields. Etc.
        What we have now is an Infobox Chinese which forces Chinese to sit atop any other language which may be more relevant to the subject and which does not have an option for highlighting non-Sinitic transcriptions but instead makes the user press "show" to see them. There are cases in which the Chinese name should not go first and another language is more appropriate, for example being the native language of the article's subject, e.g. Jalsan where I used Infobox Chinese, or Dungan-related subjects where the names in Cyrillic and Perso-Arabic are more relevant. cab (call) 06:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the infobox portrays it for the scope of "East Asia" while it is actually more for topics related to "Korea". There's a {{Infobox Korean name}} as noted above. --Cold Season (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Agree with cab that it would be useful to hear from the template's creator, PC78, regarding what should be done. The template was created over five years ago and perhaps PC78 has some institutional knowledge from back then to impart to the discussion. - ʈucoxn\talk 22:29, 9 December 2012 (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) 04:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from creator. I originally created this infobox to replace older templates such as {{Koreanname Chinesename}} and others, as well as custom language tables that were being used in other articles. Clearly I based this template on {{Infobox Korean name}}, however it was never intended to be a "Korean" template per se, rather it was meant for any Korean, Japanese or even the occasional Russian article where multiple languages were needed but where {{Infobox Chinese}} would have been inappropriate. I called the template "East Asian name" simply because that was the most descriptive, neutral and concise name I could think of. The "anti-Chinese" comment above is absurd: {{Infobox Chinese}} already existed and was better suited to Chinese articles anyway, so there was simply no need for this template to cater for Chinese language in the same way. In any case, the code I wrote for the "sort" function was (and still is?) highly convoluted and bloated, and expanding that function further would only have made it more so, to the point where the template became unmaintainable.
Reading over the above comments, I believe the broader discussion here is whether or not we need templates like this and {{Infobox Chinese}} at all, and on that I have no firm opinion, though I appreciate both sides of the argument. I do however share some of the POV concerns of the Chinese template, as it becomes problematic when people try and use it in articles where the subject is not exclusively or even primarily Chinese. That was at least one of the problems I was trying to avoid when creating this template, even if I wasn't entirely successful in doing so.
I have no opinion either way with regard to deletion, except to say that I disgaree that the template is redundant to either {{Infobox Chinese}} or {{Infobox Korean name}}. PC78 (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This template is meant for any Korean, Japanese or even the occasional Russian article where multiple languages are needed. It is language-neutral and not redundant to either {{Infobox Chinese}} or {{Infobox Korean name}}. Perhaps it needs to be updated. - ʈucoxn\talk 23:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a non-specialist who has occasion to search for the names while not actually knowing the languages, I find it extremely useful in giving the variation, and a highly desirable feature of wiki syntax. I suggest one of two rationalization: Either make multiple templates with each language coming first, or merge the Chines template and the Korean name template into this one--that would follow our general practice of trying to use general templates with the necessary parameters, rather than multiple ones for each special case. PC78, do you think a general template is practical? ) DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really think it's for me to say, as I have no desire to get re-involved with any template coding, nor am I actively editing any articles that would use this or similar templates. On balance though, I don't think a combined "super template" would be the way forward, rather I think it would probably be best to have a series of seperate modular templates that could be arranged as desired.
Looking again at some of the "delete" comments above, what I don't see is any coherant plan on how to proceed if the template is deleted, in fact most of the comments seem to be based on misconceptions of what this template is actually for (I already touched on this with my earlier comment, but I'll have another go). First is the notion that the template is redundant to and can easily be replaced with {{Infobox Chinese}}: in fact, I actually created this template to compliment {{Infobox Chinese}}, for use in situations where Chinese would not be regarded as the primary language. Would it be appropriate to use {{Infobox Chinese}} in Sakhalin Koreans, for example? I can see some people having an issue with that. Second is the idea that this template is redundant to {{Infobox Korean name}}: well no, because that template doesn't support other languages. Again, this teplate was intended to compliment {{Infobox Korean name}}, for situations where other languages are desirable. With that in mind, I don't think it would be inappropriate to have a single discussion for {{Infobox East Asian name}}, {{Infobox Chinese}} and {{Infobox Korean name}}, and indeed other such as {{Infobox Tibetan-Chinese}} - they are all basically meant for the same purpose, depending on the subject matter.
Finally, I wanted to comment on something from the initial nom: this template was never intended to be used as it is in Rumi Suizu, i.e. as a standalone "Japanese name" infobox. In fact, it's always been my understanding that Japanese related articles use the inline {{Nihongo}} rather than an infobox-style template. Perhaps we need to look at doing likewise for Chinese and Korean articles, and using the infobox templates only when a longer list of names is needed? PC78 (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OP doesn't seem to tell what exactly is the problem, nor what an alternative is. POV discussions are irrelevant.
    But I think it's better to decompose this template into pieces, to facilitate maintenance and improvement of both the code and the documenation. It is quite probable that Category:Name infoboxes by language is necessary, so that editors can easily find what they seek, and are encouraged to add descriptions of relevant languages as many as appropriate. But I don't know if there already exist many templates which will fall into this category. (Maybe {{Infobox Chinese}} should be decomposed and turned to a container, like {{babel}}, but let's not dig into this problem here. (Thanks to PC78 for writing such a broad coverage template. The doc is well written, too.) --Ahora (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You appear to have overlooked "A large number (most?) of the 144 transclusions of {{Infobox East Asian name}} seem to be on articles which are not about names, but about subjects which happen to be East Asian, and where more suitable infoboxes (for places, organisations , etc) exist (see, for example, Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905). Some, like Rumi Suizu, have two infoboxes; the subject specific one could perhaps use the East Asian name as a subtemplate. And do we need it for name articles? What should we do about the other cases?" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Articles should use one infobox for one language and one for the other, and possibly one more for a third, and a fourth. We don't need one for "East Asian" names. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We learned from {{Infobox East Asian name}} (IEAn) infoboxes are useful for names, not limited to human names. The doc is also nice, exhausting (to some extent) possibilities. This encourages contributors not to miss important information.
    Regarding similar templates, I found {{Infobox given name}} and {{Infobox family name}}. They're nice, but can't replace IEAn. {{Infobox Arabic name}} is comparable to IEAn in some sense. Most of Category:People infobox templates are specialized for some occupations or roles, like "architect" or "Hindu leader".
    I doubt if we can proceed further in this page. Decision of splitting or keeping has to be done after we clarify what's needed exactly. Maybe it's better to ask "History and society" WikiProject to discuss? --Ahora (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (TL;DR) - would the pro-deleters support a keep for historical purposes? Kayau (talk · contribs) 13:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's useful for documenting multiple languages' names for anything, not just human names, and isn't that what an encyclopedia's supposed to do? I found it while investigating a dispute at Comfort women; when you have a term with multiple applicable foreign names (Chinese, Japanese, and Korean all apply here) that are all in non-Latin scripts, you're going to be clogging up the introduction greatly with all of those foreign-language names for the same topic. Much better to put all of them into an infobox on the right side, which in this case, puts Korean at the...bottom. How is that a pro-Korean and anti-Chinese thing? Granted, it could use some improvement and expansion (why just these languages? Why not lots of others, too?), but that's not a problem that's fixable by deletion. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 13 January 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:Wict

[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 14:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not helpful at all.Of little help. {{wict|abc}} is completely equivalent to [[wikt:abc]][[wikt:abc|]], and {{wict|abc|xyz}} to [[wikt:abc|xyz]]. What's worse is that it hinders other contributors' edits by obfuscating.

It's only used in 37 pages. After deletion, I can fix them manually, but I'd appreciate if it could be done by bots.--Ahora (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC) (This template saves one vertical pipe from a raw wiki. Corrected this point, and one typo. --Ahora (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2012 (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.

Template:Update

[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 per the plan outlined by Ahora and Debresser and DGG. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Update (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Update section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Update with Template:Update section.
I think we should do one of two. Or we should change all instances of Template:Update section to {{Update|type=section}}, or we should remove the |type= parameter from Template:Update and change all instances to Template:Update section. Debresser (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 02:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge yet until we get a reasonable default. If we were to merge to a single template without parameter, the wording should be This article or section is ... If we use parameters, when it was used in a section, only the most experienced would know to use type= . An alternative if greater precision is wanted is to have it default to "article or section" but have both type=section and type=article. The present cases of its use could default to =article or =section respectively, but this would also deal with the future use by that large majority of patrollers who did not know to use the parameter. Since this is used by Twinkle, we either have to use the combination version there or have two entires in twinkle for article and for section--but I would be very reluctant to increase the size of the twinkle list longer, which would make it require more scrolling. (Am I right that it is technically impractical for the template to be coded to detect whether it is being used at the top of an article or within a section.) DGG
So we can simply add "section" the way we usually do {{Update|section}}. That is no reason to delay the merge. Debresser (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2012 (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) 03:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have gone to the trouble of being specific in many of our problem templates about whether we are talking about an article or a section, and i see no reason why this should be different. If we unify these we must have that parameter, and I continue to oppose it unless this is explicitly provided for. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has a problem with that. So let's do it. Debresser (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, and I propose:
    • Allow both {{update|section}} and {{update|type=section}}. The documentation should mention the first mainly, and the second as "for compatibility".
    • Replace all current use of {{update section}} to {{update|section}} by a bot.
    • Do not redirect from {{update section}} to {{update}}, but the former print "Don't use this template. Instead use {{update|section}}".
    • Fix twinkle appropriately.
      After all, merger is rational, and DGG is correct, too. --Ahora (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was more or less the idea, yes. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2012 (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:IMDb and Template:NNDB

[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) 01:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IMDb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NNDB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Same reason. --76.232.68.248 (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep for two reasons (1) {{IMDb}} is a "soft redirect" template which instructs the user to use a specific template, and (2) the result of the Tv.com discussion was "delete the {{Tv.com}} template after replacement", but no suggestion for replacement is given here. Frietjes (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{IMDb}} as the current templates are sufficient, but keep {{NNDB}} as it is a verifiable source. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having the soft redirect helps people who might just know to use IMdB. (btw, IMdB, though not reliable for judgements, & unusable for anything controversial about a person--but usable for routine facts (to the limited extent of any self-published source), & imo borderline at best for plots, it's reasonably accurate though not complete for a person's filmography, and quite reliable for casts and credits of a film.) I recognize I have a different orientation than some people here--templates are for the convenience of the writer and to give a reasonably uniform presentation to the reader; they're not an end in themselves, & purism is not a helpful approach to whether or not we should have one.) But if we are going to be rigorous about style, we should have the one IMdB template with appropriate parameters for calling the specialized ones(not that I necessarily think it worth the work involved) DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Frietjes' and DGG's sound analysis are hundred times more convincing than a vague "OTHERSTUFF" nom's rationale. Cavarrone (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2012 (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:Clifford the Big Red Dog

[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) 01:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Clifford the Big Red Dog (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates a few topics, which are all interlinked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 November 2012 (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) 03:17, 10 December 2012 (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:Cabuyao City

[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cabuyao City (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A child template of {{City of Cabuyao}}. I don't see any reason not to merge the two since the info in this template is already found in the other one. Unnecessary and redundant. Xeltran (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This is a re-listing of the template since the previous deletion nomination did not result to a consensus. Xeltran (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same with {{Legislative districts of Valenzuela City}} in which all of Valenzuela's barangays are separated from {{Valenzuela City}} template. Othanwiki2009 (T)
  • Merge. There is no reason to add a few more barangay links to {{City of Cabuyao}}, which should be cleaned up as well (too many incidental links). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 22:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of Cabuyao's barangays have their own links, compared to Valenzuela's. If the two templates should be merged, {{Valenzuela City}} and {{Legislative districts of Valenzuela City}} should be merged too. Othanwiki2009 (T)
  • Merge Redundant and unnecessary, in fact articles linked to template should be AfDed, as they all fail the notability test. Small villages of a tiny little unknown provincial town. All but one barangay should be deleted, IMO the industrial village of Canlubang is the only notable place worthy of a WP article. --RioHondo (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I quote "Small villages of a tiny little unknown provincial town", excuse me, are you pertaining to Cabuyao? FYI, Cabuyao is a First Class Component City, and before it became a city, it was the richest Municipality of the Philippines. If you want to delete all the articles related to Cabuyao for your so many reasons, go on! But don't pertain Cabuyao into a tiny little unknown provincial town. Why don't you try to improve Canlubang's article here in WP if you're saying that it is the ONLY notable place worthy of a WP article?? Are you underestimating Cabuyao's barangays??? Cabuyao is dubbed as an Entrepreneurial and Industrial City because of its industrial barangays that you're pertaining to small villages. Happy merging and deleting articles!! -Othanwiki2009 (T)
No, i am referring to the "city" of Tabuk. In a country where even the smallest towns dominated by farmlands and cows are labelled as "cities" (thanks to its influential congressman and mayor with good connections to the president), the city tagging isn't and shouldn't always be relied upon as indication of progress or even, notability. Heck, even the laidback Sipalay and remote Bayugan or even the NPA-infested Guihulngan are labelled as cities these days. As for the "richest municipality" or LGU (thank goodness we had that deleted), if anyone ever believes that, it only means you have a mayor to thank for, for keeping corruption at a minimum and declaring its income honestly cos more populated towns with closer proximity to the metropolis don't get that like Cainta and San Pedro, Laguna. I bet you Barangay Balibago in Santa Rosa, Laguna is at least 10 times more notable than all of your Cabuyao barangays combined, and yet even that doesn't have its own article. --RioHondo (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"City" tagging is not the main topic for this discussion, you're out of topic. Anyway, we're not discussing for which barangay or village should be notable to have a WP article, you even mentioned Balibago which you said 10 times more notable than all of Cabuyao's barangays, are you trying to say that Balibago (if it has an article) is more notable than the whole Cabuyao article? Why don't you list down all small villages which you think are notable and request to have an article in WP?? You know, it's in the content that makes an article notable! All municipalities in the Philippines have articles in WP, do you think all of their articles have notability? Especially the small ones, remote areas, fourth or fifth class towns?? What's the difference between Mamatid's article (Cabuyao's most populated barangay) and El Salvador, Misamis Oriental's article when it comes to notability?? El Salvador is a city in Misamis Occidental, its population is 47,000+ in which I think is lower than the population of Mamatid, an urban barangay, of 50,000+ people. Mamatid is very progressive, it's income and population is already qualified for a municipality status, it is even more progressive than other municipalities existing. Is it enough already for Mamatid to have an article here? Or it is still lacking for notability? -Othanwiki2009 (T)
AFAIK, this conversation only became off topic when someone started saying Bacuyao is the Entrepreneurial and achuchuchu City, 1st class City-BS that deserves this many templates. That's city tagging for you. All these cities and municipalities are incorporated places and they belong to the third-level administrative country subdivision which are all considered notable by default. Mamati or whatever you call your little village and all the rest of the barangays, however, aren't. Unless they are real prominent and backed up by many solid sources from the internet that would prove their significance (e.g, economic), notability or prominence, then they're valid as separate articles. But Manati, Achuchu-I and Achuchu-II? If you ask me, the only real notable barangays in Laguna would be Canlubang, Balibago, Pansol and maybe Mamplasan. All the rest are forgettable. But who knows? the largest barangay of each city (population-wise) could be an exception?--RioHondo (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I don't give a damn to whatever a certain city is called or has "achieved." Don't take a nomination personally and keep your head on what is currently being discussed. See WP:ALLORNOTHING (that means no If you delete this you will have to delete this arguments, please). Xeltran (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please be careful with your spelling of Cabuyao? and Mamatid?? So simple spelling. "Bacuyao", "Mamatid" or "Manati"??? Don't pretend to be idiot, because I know that you just want to insist that your bet "Balibago", "Canlubang" and others are more popular and notable than all barangays of Cabuyao that is why you spelled them right. -Othanwiki2009 (T)
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) 02:56, 10 December 2012 (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:Uw-vandalism4im

[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) 01:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-vandalism4im (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Our system of user warnings is and should be based upon being able to assume good faith, educating our users and being able to guide them in the right direction towards being productive members of Wikipedia.

This template does not assume good faith in any way, nor does it attempt to educate users or help them find the correct path towards helping the project - it is, in effect, a "One strike, and you're outta here".

I appreciate warnings are needed in various stages, but one which gives the user a very harsh, very blunt impression (and I have seen this template misused on relatively minor vandalism), does not and should not, have a place in this encyclopedia.

Would you please note that this nomination includes all of the "4im" series of warnings, not just this one. Thank you. FishBarking? 02:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep All of the 4im templates are useful, there are many times when users make it impossible to AGF through their actions and the content they add or change (especially {{uw-blp4im}} & {{uw-defam4im}}). Plus if we get rid of the 4im templates we'll just have to use the level 4 templates, which means using something for which there could be a more exact option available. Also, given that this would be a major change, this need to be done through an RFC assuming there is some support for deletion in this TFD. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AGF is appropriate only when there is little or no evidence of malice but anyone who has spent time dealing with vandalism has seen cases where it's ridiculous and clearly foolish to assume good faith and the 4im templates give us a consistent even-handed way to respond in those cases. I find 4im to be especially useful for for IP hopping and obvious socking vandals. Jojalozzo 17:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The notion of assume good faith applies in absence of evidence to the contrary. I don't think any editor who has been around this project for any significant length of time would argue that sometimes people come to Wikipedia with the intention of editing in very bad faith. In view of that, this template's existence has purpose: it negates the need for someone to have to manually write a notice without removing that option from them. I accept that the circumstances in which a template of this severity would be used are less frequent, but that in its self is not a rationale for deletion. Pol430 talk to me 18:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This should be used only for the most blatant vandalism, but I have seen it used correctly in cases when it was needed to just say "Halt!": Sprees of obscene vandalism to the same BLP within minutes, horrific trashing of articles...some people show up here with no intention of being educated. I have now been here a year and am exhausted with attempting to educate everyone who edits. I have not reaped any positive results that I can discern and I believe our lower levels of warnings are now laughable anyway. Every month the bot I stalk (just for edit tests) picks up more and more vandalism for us weaklings to deal with undoing, and there seem to be less and less of us willing to attempt. Please leave this 4im template in all iterations alone. Thank you. Fylbecatulous talk 18:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I use it only occasionally, but what's the alternative? When a (purportedly) new contributor's only two edits are to replace the content of Jane Doe's article with "She's an unconvicted murderer whose mother fellates dead donkeys" and then replace the userpage content of the editor who warned him with racist/sexist/homophobic vitriol, I don't think it's reasonable to assume good faith or to waste time cycling through the incremental warnings. Or am I missing something? Rivertorch (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jojalazzo, Rivertorch, et al; this template is used when good faith cannot be reasonably assumed by anyone. There is no need to coddle vandals like the one who left this edit[1] wherin our president is said to have won a crapping contest, and a reference to the Bush tax cuts was changed to "Baracks' Playboy subscription" - there is simply no way those edits were in good faith, and there is no need to be silly and pretend so. Good faith is "absent evidence to the contrary" it is not at all times even if it means suspending your common sense. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua 20:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template is used for cases of serious vandalism. I don't think the assumption of good faith in, for example a serious personal attack should be applied. Kevin12xd... | speak up | take a peek | email me 22:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is used for very serious vandalism where almost there would be almost no chance of AGF being applied. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To pick one example of dozens, I just gave a 4im warning to a user who, on Covino and Rich, changed text so it read "The Shittiest Show Ever" and added the nicknames "Pussy Face" and "Panty Spot" to living persons. I'm supposed to extend an assumption of good faith to a person like that? AGF is not supposed to extend to infinity, and it's users like the one I just reverted who are past AGF and deserving of a 4im warning. CityOfSilver 23:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are clear cases where a single warning is appropriate. Warning someone for violating our policy of biographies of living persons, for example (which is what brought me to this discussion as I used the template for such a purpose). --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and modify per C.Fred. Since {{Uw-vandalism4im}} is a first and immediate final warning, more effort should be made to educate the vandal (page blanker, attacker, spammer, etc). I suggest adding at least the following wiki-linked and text and parameters (from Template:Welcome-vandal): Your "your recent edits do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions." Similarly, the first bunch of links on Template:Welcomespam might be useful on Template:Uw-spam4im. - ʈucoxn\talk 01:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The staged warnings are more appropriate in most cases, but there are some cases where it is abundantly clear that anything other than a "stop now or you will be blocked" message is a waste of time. Vandalism fighters need the flexibility to be able to quickly deploy such a message when it's appropriate to do so. 28bytes (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Some people don't deserve more than one warning. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful in certain circumstances. GabrielF (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per C.Fred, this template needs to be used in some circumstances. --Webclient101talk 20:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is appropriate to use a template like this in cases such as grossly offensive material that would necessitate revel, etc. Of course you don't AGF in those cases. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While in an ideal world, editors can be educated to make good edits, Wikipedia is far from an ideal world and there are many cases where the 4im templates are appropriate. AGF is not a suicide pact. Nobody should AGF an editor that goes to a BLP and plasters it with Nazi references. While I agree that sometimes the 4im templates are overused, they do serve a purpose. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Could be used in some circumstances, not 24/7. Shouldn't AGF someone who does something insane like creating an article attacking someone, threatening to kill the President by writing so on the President's article, or calling someone a terrorist or Nazi. "Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributions, an edit you made, such as this to (BLP), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. Thanks!" doesn't sound like something you'd tell an editor calling a person a "Nazi liberal" or something. ZappaOMati 02:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of "Assume good faith (such as that the user is simply unaware of the policies and guidelines), but only if plausible. Circumstances may warrant no assumption of good faith, or indicate bad faith; respond accordingly." from WP:VANDALISM NativeForeigner Talk 09:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow close, keep, and improve documentation. We do need an escalating series of warnings. That being said, the documentation for all of these vandalism warnings could use more guidance about when they should and should not be used. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep When a user or ip continues to vandalize despite repeated warnings it becomes impossible to AGF anymore, and a harsh warning is also needed. The problem lies with editors abusing the template by posting it at the very first instance of vandalism by the user/ip, not with the template itself. Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 05:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A user does not always do things with good faith; in these cases, a harsh warning is obviously needed to stop these actions. If a user vandalises with obvious bad faith, this is a viable template to use. Vacationnine 19:42, 16 December 2012 (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/2012_December_10&oldid=1143861675"