Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 July 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 3 July 5 >

July 4

[edit]

Template:Children's games

[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. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Children's games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

fails WP:OR. Not even the articles children's games, traditional children's games or some combination thereof, exists. No game is strictly a children's game. No game listed at List of traditional children's games can be played only by children.96.52.0.249 (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:28, 4 July 2015 (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:Anti-Tamil riots in Sri Lanka

[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. Recommend follow-up discussion elsewhere of the neutrality of the current contents or desirability of merging with related templates. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anti-Tamil riots in Sri Lanka (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is Wikipedia:REDUNDANT as the more relevant and comprehensive Template:Sri Lankan Civil War already exists. Also highly non neutral. Blackknight12 (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, the navbox is better, and we don't need both. Frietjes (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the navbox is overloaded with a lot of articles pertaining to Sri Lankan civil war. These pogroms and riots deserve more importance, as three of the four events occur long before the Civil war which coincided with the onset of only the fourth incident of the list. The claim for deletion under non-neutrality (and for a designated template) is absurd while the notion of non-neutrality once again, is another creation of the initiator's imagination to delete articles/lists which don't augur well with his ethnic sentiments.--CuCl2 (chat spy acquaint) 13:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep, although I should say I don't know much about the subject so it's hard to judge the neutrality issue. But I don't think redundancy is a good enough reason to delete it: it's more tightly focused than the Civil War template, and there's no reason why we can't have both. I'm not so sure about the inclusion of references in the template, though - is that standard practice? I don't think navboxes are supposed to contain references, surely those belong in the articles. Robofish (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Robofish: The template doesn't do much but link the events (that are also listed in Template:Sri Lankan Civil War) that led to the war. It is not more tightly focused because if it was the template would have been on the 'Origins' of the war or something, this is just a list. Also a regular template would not need to have such references as its legitimacy would not need to be challenged. The Sri Lankan Civil War template remedies all these issues.--Blackknight12 (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those arguments are convincing. Changed my view to Delete. Robofish (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Robofish: I would like to reiterate two key reasons why the initiator's claims don't hold water. First, these events occurred long before the civil war, with the intent of wiping out the members of Tamil ethnic group by a majoritarian state/ethnic group to which the initiator belongs(and hence desperate to rid the list). Two, the navbox he points to immensely overpopulated with several relevant as well as irrelevant wikilinks, and is in need of trimming. These events cannot be seen from the shadow of the civil war, as they take place much earlier, when there was no warring party/or resistance outfit to oppose the state's massacres and pogroms of civilians(not combatants) Tamil ethnic group. --CuCl2 (chat spy acquaint) 17:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • You know what, I don't know enough about the subject to take a firm position on this one, and should have avoided commenting on it in the first place. Struck both my !votes above. Robofish (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Template:Sri Lankan Civil War, not neutral, too small and it can be added as they are connected events.--JudgeJason (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per CuCl2 Kanatonian (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per CuCl2's rationale. Although I assume the nominator's good faith, it would not be neutral to include these discriminatory pogroms in the subject of the Civil War that happened much later. Perhaps it could be merged with other Tamil-related or Sri Lankan conflict-related templates, and perhaps it could be expanded upon by interested contributors, but for now I'd say we keep it the way it is. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2015 (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:Black Lives Matter

[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. Questions of neutrality or the specific articles linked in the template can be discussed elsewhere. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Black Lives Matter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Much as I support the BLM movement, this template fails NPoV. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alakzi: - This can be remedied, although it'll probably be up to me to do it. Give me a few days.... starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 10:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done! All shooting articles updated with connections to Black Lives Matter. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't meet NAVBOX#2 at the time, but now that it does, it certainly meets all 5 (depending on the exact meaning of #3). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per Starship.paint and Robofish. I'm not seeing a violation of NPOV here. I think the nomination is incomplete without this rationale (specifically Starship.paint's argument that there isn't an adequately explained rationale for deletion in the nomination) (maybe I missed it?). Robofish points out substantial cleanup that has gone in to making this a unique resource. However, given the chance, I'd like to give a more nuanced !vote based on additional information that I seem incompetent to obtain. I'd like to know if other protest groups have their issue articles in a Navbox? If someone can point me to examples of either 1) Issue groups that don't have Navboxes for their protests that actually have existent WP articles, but more particularly, 2) Issue groups that do, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, or move to a appropriate name, should one exist, or refactor content a LOT. The people and articles in the template are somewhat related, so maybe there is a good title for a template very much like this one; but I doubt one specific protest movement is the link between them, they don't 'own' the protests over these events, brutality cases are not caused by belonging or supporting or opposing or whatever to BLM. OTOH there may be a template for subjects related to BLM, maybe major actions or key people or successes and failures or ...; but these are not it. So, unless there is a major change, the title does not match the content thus, delete, with nothing against recreation with some other content. - Nabla (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete- a nav box for an activist group is essentially an endorsement of their viewpoint. Defintely inconsistant with NPOV. There must certainly be a less biased way to present the same information. Even a title change to something like "Controversies involving Minorities and Law Enforcement" would probably be acceptable, but a Black Lives Matter template is unencyclopedic. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjphill1977 (talk • contribs)
    So are these nav boxes an endorsement for their viewpoints: Tea Party movement, Al-Qaeda, ACLU, Communist Party USA?
  • Keep - The template is useful for navigating related articles. Kiwifist (talk) 04:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - The content is useful navigation, but we need to find a different name for the template. and after reading more about the movement, it should be kept. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NPOV, see User:Nyttend comment above. Next we'll be seeing Template:PETA Animals with cats, dogs and horses. Articles are not related except the protesters 'think' they are important. If they 'think' a death is important, it's their opinion. What next, Template:White Americans killed by Black people? What about Template:KKK Movement that lists all black criminals? None of the Keep's have explained how the articles are connected, except that 'some people protested it!'--JudgeJason (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First, on its own merits, I find this template very useful for navigating related articles. However, in regard to NPOV, it's not just that BLM has protested these deaths, but rather that the movement was built around and in response to these deaths by the families and friends of the victims (as well as by others, of course). -- Irn (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This simple navigational aid allows readers to readily find related content within an organized structure. The Black Lives Matter movement has increased in notability because of the attention that the media, and especially social media, has given to the individual deaths linked in the nav box. There is an obvious, and even profound, relationship between the deaths and the movement. The NPOV concerns fall short, and especially the slippery slope and WP:UNDUE arguments which are wholly lacking in actual evidence. This navigational template meets all five criteria of WP:NAVBOX.- MrX 19:45, 5 August 2015 (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 comrade

[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; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newly created, yet redundant to {{Infobox person}} (which it replaced here, and here, for instance) or {{Infobox officeholder}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • No : As the creator of the template, I oppose the deletion of the above template. I agree that some of the stuffs are from {{Infobox person}} and {{Infobox officeholder}} are placed in this template at this moment, but it can cover most of the details of a communist leader (like even if it is not from politically active party, but still quite popular). This template can be treated as a part of {{Infobox person}}, just like others are there... like {{Infobox dancer}}, {{Infobox fashion designer}}, {{Infobox chef}} and so on. This template has a scope of improvement in the future, that I am likely to improve. This is not totally redundant template, but quite a useful one. Logical1004 (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What parameters are unique to communist leaders? Alakzi (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all, the template is using some parameters of {{Infobox officeholder}}, that can be edited and introduced as a part of module in the current template. In this way it will reduce the current template size and redundancy. Second, the current template can be treated as a sub-part of {{Infobox person}} as other similar templates, as I have said earlier too. Third, regarding uniqueness to communist leaders, there is a large info of communist movements/ideologies/line of thought and that can be accommodated in an infobox, as the idea of the whole infobox is to present the summary of some unifying aspect that the articles share and sometimes to improve navigation to other interrelated articles. So keeping a separate template for that purpose will help. Logical1004 (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2015 (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:Indian Toppers

[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. North America1000 13:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A navigation template with 11 links of which 10 are redlinks is not particularly useful. The template was created almost four months ago, but no attempt has been made to create any of the redlinked articles (the existing article was created several years ago). All the redlinked articles are lists, and I don't know whether they are all sufficiently notable to have an article. Some of them probably are, but again, the articles don't exist yet so linking to them in a template is pretty premature. Note that "topper" is a word that is used in Indian English to refer to a student who ranks first in their class or school - its use is well attested and it's not slang, merely a regional term. bonadea contributions talk 10:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A list of special class railway apprentice toppers and entrance exam toppers? I strongly doubt that most of these will warrant articles — not on resource-availability or systemic bias grounds, but on encyclopedic grounds. Let's say the term's in common use in the USA; I still can't imagine articles for "List of Foreign Service Officer Examination Toppers" or "List of SAT Toppers", for example. Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2015 (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:Adler-Convertibles

[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. — Earwig talk 20:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template consisting of a hard-coded instance of template:cite book used just at Convertible#Bibliography. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually need the template though? Why not just write out the citation? -- 23:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cite MAG

[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. — Earwig talk 00:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessarily complicated citation template used only at Michael Gerzon#Further reading which just take cite book templates and make it more complicated to cite the two books there. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2015 (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 renner

[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; deleted as G7 by Mackensen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template that is just hard-coded text for a citation in only two articles. However this template doesn't include a page number parameter so the one page that uses it with a page number just manually adds it at the end. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Same as below. BTW, you're an admin now, you'd better watch stuff like the scare quotes around "template" you used below. Smugness and adminning don't go together. BMK (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't meant to be smug, my apologies. I meant citation since it was a citation, just out of the typical format (which is beyond a minor issue to me). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2015 (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 500build

[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; deleted as G7 by Mackensen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template that is just hard-coded text for a citation. Used in only two articles but because the "template""citation" doesn't include a page number parameter, both uses (1 and 2) just manually add it afterwards in the reference which looks different from the usage at template:cite book. I think it's preferable to manually insert the text into the articles including moving the page references to the "proper" place. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the two transclusions and tagged the template for speedy deletion using db-author. I thought I'd be using cites to this book more often, but it didn't happen. BMK (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I used to create similar templates in my sandbox but I would substitute the text directly into the references. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 4 July 2015 (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:Latin intro

[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. — Earwig talk 23:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The contents here should be subtituted into each page and the template deleted. The template guidelines suggest that templates should not normally be used to store article text and this is largely article text at the start of each page. Locking it into a template prevents any customizing of the text (which is why it's not used at List of Latin phrases (full)), adds unnecessary difficulty to the page and (ignoring WP:BEANS) given that this template isn't protected, opens up an additional angle for vandalism. This is for discussion following substitution but the box itself may not need to inserted into every page (like it at List of Latin phrases (full)) given that every page also has Template:Latin phrases as a footer. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. These pages should have similar intros, because the situation's identical for all of them. If we identify a problem with any of them, we'll have identified a problem with all of them; it would be a waste of time to have to edit twenty pages when a single template edit could fix everything. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Normally I support the deletion of boilerplate text-type templates. But this is different: all articles in the series "List of Latin phrases" appear to require the exact same header and lead, so it makes sense to store that introduction in a template. If there were only two or three articles in the series, I would have said "delete", but with twenty pages, it makes good sense to standardise this boilerplate in the form of a template. — This, that and the other (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no reason to display anything different on the 20 letters. If we want to consistently display the same on 20 articles then a template is well-suited. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2015 (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/2015_July_4&oldid=1140438716"