Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 29

< June 28	June 30 >

June 29

Template:RuPaul songs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RuPaul songs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Template:RuPaul is better. Magioladitis (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, redundant to Template:RuPaul. Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete unused templates. Department of needess template proliferation reduction.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:46, 4 July 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:Pg-ovw

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pg-ovw (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and very old Magioladitis (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, generally redundant to {{la}} and friends. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' Department of reduction of the proliferation of needless or unused templates.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:48, 4 July 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:Pg-ovw2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pg-ovw2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and very old Magioladitis (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, generally redundant to {{la}} and friends. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' Department of reduction of the proliferation of needless or unused templates.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:48, 4 July 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:Perth Lynx

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Perth Lynx (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and full of red links and unclosed parentheses. I see no real use of it. Magioladitis (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, redundant to the squad list in West Coast Waves. Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' Department of reduction of the proliferation of redundant, needless or unused templates.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:49, 4 July 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:PersonnelStaff

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. It has very limited purpose to be really used at some point. Magioladitis (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, seems to be an attempt at some variant of {{infobox organization}}, but perhaps for a military organization. in any case, unused, so delete. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' Department of reduction of the proliferation of needless or unused or limited-purpose templates.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:50, 4 July 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:Perpendicular

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unused. It's doable by math code. Magioladitis (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete and adding {{parallel}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment, should probably consider the rest of Category:Geometric symbol templates, many of which are very weak templates. Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete to reduce the proliferation of un-needed, un-used, or otherwise ill-considered templates.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:58, 4 July 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:Panos D. Prevedouros

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Panos D. Prevedouros (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Something is wrong here. We don't need a template for a single person's infobox. Unused anyway. Magioladitis (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since also unused. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, I usually have these deleted as {{db-test}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete to reduce the proliferation of un-needed, un-used, single-use, or otherwise ill-considered templates.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:59, 4 July 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:PT color

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PT color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. I see no reason for someone to be so lazy not to type 6 times f Magioladitis (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it's unused. This is a template that is meant to be used by some of the Rail transport succession templates and goes together with {{PT lines}} & {{PT stations}} which are also unused. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all three as templates that are not employed in any useful fashion. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete to reduce the proliferation of un-needed, un-used, or otherwise ill-considered templates.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:00, 4 July 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:Transfermarkt

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. The discussion was focused on the external link, and not the template. It seems as though there is no wider consensus on whether or not this is an appropriate external link. Clearly if the external link is blacklisted, then the template should be deleted as well. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Transfermarkt is not deemed a reliable source for player profiles, see recent discussion from RSN here. There is therefore no need for a template for an unreliable source. Giant Snowman 14:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't mind if this template is deleted; but a) the discussion at WP:RSN wasn't exactly exhaustive, with only 2/3 users voicing an opinion (so no real consensus to be gained), and b) I believe a number of BLPs use this without any other sources. This obviously isn't good either, but are you suggesting it should be banned from Wikipedia altogether? If not, then there would be no need to delete the template. It is, generally speaking, very handy as at least a second source for statistics. Jared Preston (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the discussion was not exhaustive - even though the discussion was advertised at WT:FOOTY. However, you will see all of the editors (4 in total, myself included) highlight concerns to varying degrees, from me believeing it is wholly unacceptable to another talking about "warning sign(s)". Should Transfermarkt be removed entirely from Wikipedia? No, I understand its news section is more acceptable. My concern is mainly with the player database section, which is something that this template exclusively covers. The content is user-generated, and there is minimal-to-no checking of information, therefore it cannot be considered reliable for player articles, and should not be used on any biography. There are many other reliable databases to use, and the fact that X amount of articles exclusively use Transfermarkt as a source is a moot point. Giant Snowman 16:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If transfermarkt is an unreliable source, then this should be removed, but a bot should be created to delete all references to transfermarkt as well. The template is purely an ease of use mechanism. If the underlying source is useless then it should be extirpated; if not, and transfermarkt is usable, then this template should remain to make it easier to reference. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wholly agree with using a bot to remove Transfermarkt references etc. as well. Giant Snowman 17:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment are we discussing the external link or the template? if we are considering the external link, then it looks like there are thousands of them (transfermarkt.de transfermarkt.co.uk transfermarkt.com). using a template seems better than using a bare URL, but if the external link is to be deleted, we should delete both, but it's not clear an outcome of a TfD can be to delete all the links to a website. Frietjes (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The player profiles are by far the most reliable thing about transfermarkt - they can only be changed by the site's staff, the form that was linked in the discussion on the source is the "report mostakes" form. Here's the site's FAQ on this: http://www.transfermarkt.de/de/information/basics/faqdatenpflege.html

Fussballdaten or Weltfussball pretty much never correct mistakes (and those are easy to find there too(, and kicker's database pretty incomplete - so at least when it comes to German football the only other option would be to rely on printed sources only, which would make it very hard to double-check data for non-German speakers. Alexpostfacto (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

before you state "The player profiles are by far the most reliable thing about transfermarkt - they can only be changed by the site's staff", that is clearly not true, as evidenced in the RSN discussion linked to above. If you register ana ccount, you can edit the stats and information. Giant Snowman 11:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Until a decision is made to remove all these references to the (apparently decided by a thin crew) unreliable source, deleting the template is only a small drop in the bucket. But it seems we have some difference of opinion on both the reliability of the source and whether consensus of a few is site-wide sufficient to authorize removal of all the links; someone should see if one of the bot runners would queue up such a task based on the state of the discussion archived or whether the bot runners would want something more solid before doing the deed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are other discussions at RSN, many other editors have raised a concern about the reliablity of the source over time, and notorious vandal Zombie433 (talk · contribs) (community banned) used the website as a tool of disruption on Wikipedia. It simply cannot be trusted. I see many editors at the latest RSN discussion (myself included) raise concerns about the site, I see nobody provide firm evidence that it is reliable. Giant Snowman 11:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the online soccer databases are actually all that reliable sources. I doubt anyone did a study, so comparsions between the databases are only subjective opinions - but at least when it comes to German leagues I neve noticed it to be worse than any other database (you can easily find mistakes in the other ones as well, e.g. this player at fussbaldaten http://www.fussballdaten.de/spieler/llorentemickael/2003/ - never played for Eintracht Braunschweig). That "the content is user-generated and there does not look to be any kind of moderation or checking." (quoted from here: here) is definitely wrong - which you can easily check at the site itself (see the FAQ I linked for example). And Transfermarkt is actually taken serious and used by the main stream media and academic institutions (e.g. by the London School of Economics http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp0948.pdf, and a source for journalists using the site: http://visdp.de/post/26618740898/die-macht-des-geruechts, visdp is a German media magazine: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/V.i.S.d.P._%28Magazin%29) - this doesn't make it a reliable source automatically. And I actually agree that you should not use it as the only source for an article. But it makes no sense to ban transfermarkt and allow other databases such as fussballdaten or weltfussball as source, since I doubt anyone could provide any kind of evidence that they are reliable either. Alexpostfacto (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that there is moderation, but it is clearly not very good - as proved by the whole Zombie433 saga. Just because Transfermarkt is used by certain other sites does not make it reliable, fact-checking in the media is notoriously lax. Just because other websites may not be fully reliable does not matter; they are not currently under discussion. This is not meant to be a discussion about the reliability of Transfermarkt, this is a discussion about the merits/lack thereof of this template. Giant Snowman 14:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is that the template should be deleted because it isn't reliable. So it's hard to discuss the merits of the template without touching the issue. And as I said - that the media and academia (the German wiki article links another study from the University of Zurich which also used transfermarkt as a source) doesn't proof the site's reliability either way. However - so far anyone that came out against the site only provided only unsourced opinion. (and btw, is there any link to that zombie saga for those who missed it?) Personally I am not a huge fan of transfermarkt.de either (although the statistics for German competitions are useful) - - but discussing this one template now doesn't seem all that useufl to me. If one wants to make sure the data on wikipedia one needs to find some kind of standards to judge databases in context (transfermarkt is one you can at least find third-party sources discussing it - unless many others). And I see no adavantage in deleting the template and thousands of links now before it is known how useful it is in the context of the other existing templates for soccer databases. Right now most articles with a transfermarkt link link to at least one other database at least, which makes it either to at least double check both. Alexpostfacto (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated this one template for deletion. We should therefore discuss this one template and this one template ONLY. Other databses existing/being used on Wikipedia is wholly irrelevant. Re: your comment of "so far anyone that came out against the site only provided only unsourced opinion" - no, it's true, as evidenced in the most recent RSN where a link to edit the stats page was provided. That shows that the content is user-generated and we should therefore not deem the website reliable. As the website is not reliable, then the template is pointless. It's really that simple. As for Zombie433, there have been far too many discussions about his disruption, check the archives at WP:ANI or WT:FOOTY. Giant Snowman 15:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a link to edit the stats page. It's the "report a mistake" form. The data will then be checked by a staff member - I linked to the FAQ before, the process is explained there. And yes, you nominated this individual template - but context is important here. For German players I tend to think that the transfermarkt template is actually the most useful one when it comes to linking databases. So yes, you nominated just this singlke template - but since at least one template for Germany centric soccer databases seems like a useful thing to have I fail to see why the one that offers the most should be deleted first. If there was an independent third-party source that shows that transfermarkt's profiles are worse than say Fussballdaten's I would be more comfortable with deleting the template (what's usually criticized about transfermarkt is the rumors/market value section, which is indeed completely user-generated, but your argument is that the statistics are unreliable, which isn't a common criticism as far as I am aware).

And I specifically meant a source that confirms how Zombie433 manipulated transfermarkt profiles. He might very well have tricked them - but if you use this as an argument you should at least provide evidence instead of expecting people to take your word for it.Alexpostfacto (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a link to submit to change the stats. Zombie433 submitted false stats to Transfermarkt using this method and then used that to 'justify' his vandalism on Wikipedia. Other websites have picked up on the unreliability of Transfermarkt, see the comments here, for example - "Basically a site made by fans for fans" and "people were saying it was accurate but it all looked like nonsense to me." I'm not sure what more I can say/do to show the unreliability, other than my knowledge of Zombie433 (which goes back 4/5 years so forgive me for not having direct links to hand), the fact that anybody can edit it, and the concerns that have been raised by a number of editors, over a number of discussions, over a number of years. Please put the fact that I have nominated this template and not others to the side for the purpose of this discussion. I don't know if other similar sites are reliable or not, that's something we can explore in due course. Giant Snowman 19:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can only say - I linked to the documentation that says how it works. Direct quote from transfermarkt's documentation: "Korrekturen jeglicher Art können nur registrierte und eingeloggte User durchführen. Die Prüfung und Freischaltung der Korrekturen kann aufgrund der Vielzahl von Korrekturvorschlägen einige Zeit in Anspruch nehmen. Wir bitten daher um Geduld." "Only registered amd logged-in users can submit corrections. The fact checking and approval process can take some time due to the amount of suggested corrections. Thanks for your patience". On the site it flat-out says that users can not change the data on their own. And a message board thread isn't really an independent source - plus the thread is actually about the financial data the site provides, that this data is often based on rumors and speculation is disputed by no one and a valid criticism. As for "by fans, for fans" - Transfermarkt.de is a for-profit site owned by one of Germany's major publishing houses. And I find it impossible to decide on the template without considering if there is a better source online for certain data - after all we want to know if the decision would affect the quality of certain articles, positively or negatively. Right now you can easily see which articles use transfermarkt as a source, and editors can add additional sources and double-check. I, for example, always use multiple databases plus printed sources for my player articles (although I must admit, so far, as long as I used books for statistics only, I only referenced offline sources if they differed from the sites I linked). If the template is removed it will become much harder to see where certain information might have come from, and there are ten thousands of articles that could be affected. I focus on editing articles on German football, and there are many pretty bad ones - transfermarkt is at least a convenient starting point if you want to improve a player article, moreso than other sites since it has more complete and in-depth profiles. It's a problem if people use it as the only source and don't fact-check. Alexpostfacto (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I am telling you, the "fact checking and approval process" may very well exist, but it simply doesn't work; and if you admit that the site publishes some information based on "rumors and speculation", how can we be sure the rest isn't also equally unreliable? A quick example: Ismael Ehui - according to Transfermarkt, he made his debut for Fulham on 14 August 2004. However, he never played for Fulham according to Neil Brown or Soccerbase, and his actual debut was for a different team (Scunthorpe) on a different date nearly two years later (10 March 2006) as confirmed by Soccerbase. Has some over-eager fan added that information - maybe in good faith, maybe based on rumours he was due to play? Probably. But the moderator has failed to check it, and therefore very wrong information is present. It's stuff like that that means I have zero trust in Transfermarkt, especially when other much more reliable sites exist (e.g. Soccerway. Giant Snowman 08:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every database out there has glitches like this (if you look at the match report for that game you see that the player was mistakenly put into the line-up instead of Radzinski. Radzinski is still listed in the match report as being subbed out, despite not being in the starting line-up). Soccerway has those too (one quick example I didn't even have to look hard for: http://uk.soccerway.com/matches/2011/04/02/germany/3-liga/tus-koblenz-1911-ev/braunschweiger-tsv-eintracht-von-1895-ev/962878/ Marc Vucinovic never played in that game, he actually wasn't even part of Eintracht Braunschweig's squad anymore. He was simply mistakenly added into the line-up instead of S. Bohl). You need to realise that those databases contain ten thousands of match reports, all entered manualy. Just as books will have printing errors. My problem is that you declare one of those databases to be less reliable than others, entirely based on anecdotal evidence. They all have their mistakes and weakness (I wouldn't use soccerway for statistics on German leagues, for example - just like I wouldn't use German sites for stats on English league games). That's exactly why you should never use only one as a source, and why I am opposed to getting rid of one without clear evidence. That soccerway rror I posted for example could be quickly detected by double-checking with transfermarkt, fussballdaten and/or kicker (but all of those databases on their own will have their own mistakes). Another one from soccerway: http://uk.soccerway.com/matches/2008/09/27/germany/3-liga/braunschweiger-tsv-eintracht-von-1895-ev/wuppertaler-sport-verein-borussia-ev/647599/ (Both goals are atributed to Banser by mistake). Again, I don't bring up those examples to show that one database is better than another - just that as long as they are allowed as sources at all using multiple ones is the only way to get accurate data. Alexpostfacto (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The vital difference is that errors with Soccerway et al will be genuine mistakes by paid staff using an incorrect match report or similar (even the BBC has them!), whereas with Transfermarkt it is any old Tom, Duck or Harry submitting the information. Giant Snowman 09:56, 23 June 2013 (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) 22:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there's consensus at RSN that the EL in question isn't reliable, then it stands to reason that we shouldn't have an EL template for it (or indeed be linking to it at all). If people are arguing that we don't have such a consensus, this should be punted back to RSN for a longer discussion. I'm inclined to believe that we're not so short of football databases that we should feel obliged to link to ones that have repeatedly been shown to contain dud or outright hoax information, no matter what oversight is theoretically in place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RSN looks after reliable sources, external links should be discussed at ELN. External links that don't meet the requirements for reliable sources can still be used in the external links section of an article. Since this template is designed for use in the external links section, RSN shouldn't have been involved. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant whether this website/templete is used as an external link or inline (FYI, it appears as both), it's not reliable and should not be included anywhere. As it should not be included anywhere, there is zero point in having a template. Giant Snowman 14:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. External links don't have to be reliable sources. Their use is governed by WP:EL, not WP:RS. The template documentation says "Please note that since this will almost certainly go on the external links section". If the source isn't reliable then it shouldn't be used in the body of an article, but its use may be acceptable in the external links section and a template makes more sense than a bare url. We went through this with tv.com, which suffers the same problems, in December.[1] --AussieLegend (✉) 14:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense whatsoever. Link to X in main body = naughty, link to X at bottom of page = superduper. Giant Snowman 14:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AussieLegend is correct in that we have different standards for ELs and for inline references. However, the reason for that is because we allow for external links which provide a "unique resource" if that content can't be provided here. Another statistics dump is not a unique resource. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:43, 8 July 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:Infobox Serbia municipality

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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 10. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:11, 10 July 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:Infobox Swiss town

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. There appear to be no serious objections to rewriting the template to use {{infobox settlement}}, but as was mentioned below, that can be discussed on the talk page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Swiss town (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A deletion tag has not been placed on this template, which has 2,812 transclusions. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The template has now been added. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Except for a few special but not essential parameters like "snowimage" I think we can turn this into a wrapper for Infobox settlement. De728631 (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This infobox is significantly different from Infobox settlement. It is also perfectly reasonable to have country level infoboxes for things like municipalities or other official administrative divisions given the different nature and characteristics of their country or region. This results in infoboxes that are way more flexible and easier to use. mgeo talk 13:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Being "different" does not mean "not redundant". In what way are Swiss subdivisions different to those of other countries, that means {{Infobox settlement}} is not adequate? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are many differences in terms of geography, history and politics etc... and definitions are context dependant. Just one example: we could now easily add a parameter indicating whether the municipality is a village, town or a city simply based on its number of inhabitants, but that would be impossible or very difficult on an internationalized infobox. mgeo talk 17:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this info box uses several data templates which allow populations and areas to be updated quickly and easily across the entire country. Unless info box settlement can do this as well, deleting this country level infobox will cause a significant loss of functionality.Tobyc75 (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Longterm, such data will be migrated to Wikidata; but even in the short term, the use of data templates, if necessary, does not mean that this template could not be converted to a wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a test case that demonstrates how this wrapper would be implemented? Pending such a demonstration, I'm reluctant to agree to the removal of such a widely used infobox. Sandstein 17:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- a first draft of a wrapper template is in the sandbox. Frietjes (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - looking at your first draft, I'm confused as to why this is better. The wrapper is almost as complex as the infobox. But it now has to interact with another template. Another template that may be changed without any testing to see how it interacts with this one specific wrapper. To me it seems like an attempt to make things more complex in the name of "simplifying". The current infobox is regularly maintained and any changes can be checked against problems quickly and easily. That will not be the case with this proposed change. Tobyc75 (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - the wrapper actually fixes an image bug (see the testcases), and offloads the density computation and unit conversion to the main settlement infobox. the total size is actually significantly reduced. the map code in both the live and sandbox templates seriously needs some review. I just copied it verbatim, but it's clearly incredibly expensive to be checking for the existence of dozens of images. the main advantages of using {{infobox settlement}} as a backend is that the information is presented in a uniform manner, microformats are exported by the backend template, and that the unit conversions are handled automatically. Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know which image bug you're talking about. In which test case is it fixed? As for the complex map code, the issue is that it needs to be able to display the correct location map regardless of how it's named. It needs to get the correct municipality even though there may be several with similar names and the name used in the English Wikipedia may not match the name used in Commons. Additionally each year some municipalities merge and so some maps change and the year of the change appears in the map name. Until the wrapper can always pick the most current map, for the correct municipality and also handle former municipalities every time, it wouldn't make any sense to attempt to replace the infobox. Tobyc75 (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - As for offloading the density and unit conversion tasks, unless infobox settlement is doing the computations itself, that's a non-issue. If its calling the convert function, as I understand it does, then it doesn't matter whether Infobox Swiss Towns or infobox settlement calls Convert it is the same. Tobyc75 (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        the bug is in the Zwischbergen example, but it appears that is simply an issue with the testcases not using the same syntax, so I will fix that. and, yes "infobox settlement is doing the computations itself", so it apparently is an issue. the best solution for the map issue is to move the maps to WikiData. the code used for finding the map is an unbelievable resource hog, and is the primary reason why it takes several seconds to save the testcases page. however, in any event, refactoring the template is something that can be hashed out on the talk page for the template, and is really an orthogonal issue if the template is kept. the only reason I created the refactored version in the sandbox was to fulfill a request.Frietjes (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough. But I think you have to have a working wrapper that is easier to use and better than the current infobox before we talk about replacing a heavily used infobox. Right now the wrapper doesn't seem any more efficient and doesn't address the concerns about Swiss specific geography and culture mentioned above.Tobyc75 (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about wrappers is that they needn't be permanent. If the consensus is that the image-matching code is too hairy and expensive to maintain then we can substitute the wrapper code on the articles it's used on and be rid of it; this will slightly increase the burden of adding a template to a page for new users (though only as much as most other settlements have to put up with) while relieving us of the burden of so much slow, fragile and complicated code. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The map is used on every municipality and former municipality article. Some of which will change each year and some of which will not. The wrapper has to address this and has to get the correct and most up to date map or the wrapper will be less useful than the current infobox and there is no reason to delete the current infobox and replace it with something that increases the burden on users.Tobyc75 (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator failed to add a deletion template (or request one be added) to the infobox. Neither did he mention it is used in 2,812 articles and yet he did both to all the templates that only have a hundred or so transclusions, which I find peculiar. Like #Template:Infobox Serbia municipality above, the automation in this template is sadly lacking in {{Infobox settlement}} and the proposed wrapper doesn't adequately address this, although it does include some. Still, this is unacceptable as we should not be deleting functionality just so everything looks like Infobox settlement, which needs its appearance updated anyway. I'm convinced by some comments made above, notably that country level infoboxes "are way more flexible and easier to use" and "there is no reason to delete the current infobox and replace it with something that increases the burden on users". These are both very valid points, more so given the fact that the proposed wrapper is almost as complex as the existing template. Replacing this template with a wrapper still leaves us with two templates. Even worse, it means that two templates have to be maintained for one country where at the moment only one needs maintaining. Deleting the template deletes functionality. Neither option provides any benefit to Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- what automation in this template is not adequately addressed by the proposed wrapper?! there is nothing in the template that isn't in the wrapper. Frietjes (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based on the discussion at #Template:Infobox Serbia municipality above, the ultimate aim seem to be to delete wrappers, so the wrapper automation really isn't the issue. The automation doesn't exist in Infobox settlement and this really needs to be addressed. I don't see any benefit in replacing a functional template with an almost as complex wrapper that then relies on yet another template that only achieves what one template is already doing quite well. It's pointless, unnecessary complexity, all just to make one infobox look like another infobox that needs to be updated itself. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - my ultimate aim is not to delete wrappers, only ones which don't do much. in this particular case, I see no reason to delete the template, but converting it to a wrapper does reduce the complexity of the code, and allows for a more uniform presentation across WP. I see no downside. Frietjes (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not your aims that give me concern. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Joining the opinion of "AussieLegend (✉) 14:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)". Uncle Scrooge (talk) 19:10, 9 July 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:Infobox Greek Dimos

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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 10 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:03, 10 July 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:Infobox former municipality Japan

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 after replacement, assuming the template can be replaced with no loss of information. If that is not the case, let me know and I will revise my closing statement. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox former municipality Japan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. Only 175 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serves useful purpose in that it distinguishes between current and former municipalities, and mirrors template on WP:JA.--MChew (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How are those characteristics useful? The use of |extinct_date= in {{Infobox settlement}} distinguishes former municipalities; why is that not adequate? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
refactor as was done for Template:Infobox Prefecture Japan. Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, replace with standard. It's 2013 now, c'mon.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete and migrate to the current appropriate template to reduce the proliferation of out of date templates that have functionality in other templates (as described by the nominator)
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:12, 4 July 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:Infobox Papua New Guinea place

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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 10. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:00, 10 July 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:Infobox Kibbutz

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 rewrite using the version in the sandbox. If you still want the template deleted, feel free to renominate it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Kibbutz (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}, to which a conversion was prepared in 2010 (see talk page), but never implemented. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

refactor using the prepared code, since there were no objections there, seems like a no-brainer. Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not redundant - contains several factors which are not included in Infobox settlement. Number 5 7 12:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with this template but from the examples in the testcases page, it does appear that the code mentioned by Frietjes does do everything that the template currently does. Can you give an example of what isn't compatible? --AussieLegend (✉) 01:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two that are missing are "Affiliation" and "Founded by". Almost all Kibbutzim, and most other Israeli villages (which also use this template) are affiliated to a certain organisation - e.g. the Kibbutz Movement. "Founded by" is slightly different to founder (most places were founded by groups of people or organisations rather than an individual, which is what the settlement infobox uses). Number 5 7 09:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Affiliation" and "Founded by" aren't missing in the sandbox code, although somebody had transposed the links to the labels, which I've now fixed. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm lost. What do you mean they aren't missing in the sandbox code? Which sandbox? Number 5 7 09:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Kibbutz/sandbox. This is what is referred to at Template talk:Infobox Kibbutz#reimplmentation. Testcases are at Template:Infobox Kibbutz/testcases.--AussieLegend (✉) 10:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand what you mean? Are these factors being transferred to the new infobox? Number 5 7 19:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that the code in the sandbox would replace the existing template code. No change would be required at any article. To the reader, the only difference would be that the infobox now looks like Infobox settlement. Editors would enter data exactly as they do now. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:29, 7 July 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.

MtyMetro templates

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MtyMetro1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:MtyMetro2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Highly inaccessible (italic sideways text as images; low-contrast pastel-on white headings); redundant to the more standard, easier-to-maintain, style of route templates in the {{Railway line legend}} family. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Both have been orphaned and boldly replaced by the conventional style {{Monterrey Metro navbox}}. Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:31, 1 July 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:Please leave this line alone (tutorial sandbox talk heading)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Please leave this line alone (tutorial sandbox talk heading) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer in use. Not needed. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No longer in use? Have you checked this before you write? Athens, Patras, Ioannina, Heraklion are some examples (of big Greek cities) that use this template. Your argument is rash if not silly. Dimboukas (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are thinking about Template:Infobox Greek Dimos, whose deletion discussion above is for an entirely different reason. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should not have been disused without adding the functionality to the tutorial sandbox heading template. I'll do that now. Cenarium (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, I've no objection to it being deleted. Cenarium (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete to reduce the proliferation of un-needed, un-used, or ill-formed otherwise ill-considered templates.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:02, 4 July 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.