Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 9

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

May 9

[edit]

Template:R to anthroponymy page

[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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing, unnecessary, and only used on a few redirects. All of them are about names similar to "Alphonse" for some reason. I don't think an article should have anthroponymy in the title, anyways. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Whats confusing? Its cleary says that the redirect pages are used to indicate that the links aren't mistakes, like linking to a disambiguation page via "page name (disambiguation)" Christian75 (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously. Template has a clearly defined purpose, exactly analogous to redirects to dab pages, but differentiated because anthroponymy pages are treated differently. —swpbT 13:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. There shouldn't be a need for any redirects with "(anthroponymy)" as the disambiguator, let alone a dedicated rcat to them. See WP:APOTITLE for the disambiguators that the Anthroponymy project uses—"(Anthroponymy)" isn't one of them. -- Tavix (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Striking "strong" from my !vote due to a willingness to try to make this RCAT work. I still favor deletion, but if it's going to be kept, let's figure out a good documentation. -- Tavix (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see the point of such an rcat. Unlike {{R to disambiguation page}} redirects like these aren't needed for technical reasons (WP:INTDABLINK). -- Tavix (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note the alternate proposal as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Tavix that redirects containing the (anthroponymy) disambiguator are quite unnecessary. However (and that's contrary to the template's current documentation, which should be amended), the function of the template is to tag any disambiguated redirect to an anthroponymy page, for example Julia (given name) (which redirects to Julia). On a side note, given that this template only serves as an envelope for the underlying category Category:Redirects to anthroponymy pages, it would seem that WP:CFD would be the ideal place to discuss it. – Uanfala (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to amending the RCAT to something that actually makes sense. However, my concern would be that of usefulness. Is there a reason someone would want to track these type of redirects? From reading the documentation, it seems the creator of the RCAT was misguided into thinking WP:INTDABLINK also applies to anthoponymy pages (which isn't the case). {{R to disambiguation page}} is useful because of WP:INTDABLINK. -- Tavix (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The usefulness of such a category will depend on the way the handling of links to name index pages is going to be operationalised. I'm not aware of any large-scale attempts here. But even then people apparently find this useful (I've given up trying to figure out why people need the rcats that they create). INTDABLINK doesn't apply to such pages, but its raison d'etre does apply to a large extent. And if we disregard all that, then this is at worst a topical variant of {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. – Uanfala (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2017 (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).

Template:Dark Horse tracks

[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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't what the template namespace is for: this template is hard-coded to be used only on the songs articles of the album.Gonejackal (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Previous TfDs for this template:
but what is the point of making separate templates to hide the list-of-tracksGonejackal (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
to avoid typing the same thing in 9 different articles. Frietjes (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
i understand that, but why hide them. thats what the template is used for which is frankly pointlessGonejackal (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
probably the same reason why navboxes are frequently collapsed by default. it sounds like your objection is to all collapsed tracking listing templates, in which case, the scope of this discussion is too narrow. Frietjes (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
navboxes are a different story. by the looks of previous 'tracks' template discussions, this isnt new. i think all of them have mostly been deleted. and i see a lot of 'per precedent' explanationsGonejackal (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
in which case you should have linked to this discussion for example. if your only objection is that the list of tracks is hidden, we can easily fix that. Frietjes (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Izkala, IndianBio, JG66, Warpozio, and SMcCandlish: who commented in the prior discussion. Frietjes (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gonejackal, perhaps part of the answer to your question is in the closing comments linked to in the "Previous TfDs" box to the right: "Well, if this violates MOS:HIDDEN, so do the navboxes, so that's a non-starter. Are infobox track listings a navigational aid, or are they content? ... in past nominations, the track listings were found to be redundant to song navboxes, which isn't the case here. I suggest holding an RfC to decide what's to be done about these track listings once and for all." (Also, please note there are examples of, say, the names of recording studios being hidden in infoboxes, when many locations appear.) The situation regarding this Dark Horse tracks template remains the same as in 2015: there is no George Harrison songs template, nor is there a Dark Horse album template, meaning the information is not "redundant". I created this tracks template because, from the song articles I'd seen, it was a common feature in song infoboxes. As the closing admin wrote (and as I was advocating at the time, and in a later TfD), the whole issue of displayed full track listings/hidden full track listings/displayed partial track listings is long overdue discussion in its own right. That hasn't happened, but the current discussion that Frietjes linked to concerns the equally overdue need to ensure the "redundancy" argument is reflected in the guidelines at Template:Infobox song. JG66 (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Sorry, I've just discovered it wasn't me that created this template at all. I was getting confused with another Harrison one, no doubt.
Also, Gonejackal, your entire reason for being here on Wikipedia appears to be about this template … I mean, really? JG66 (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
a few other errors: Template:Infobox song is not a guideline and user:Alakzi is not and has never been an wp:adminGonejackal (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
track lists have a finite number of entries with no possibility of expansion. this is the fundamental difference between navigational footers since navigational footers can get many times largerGonejackal (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonejackal: I just assumed that Alakzi or anyone closing a TfD had to be an admin, which is reflective of my contributions here as an article writer, rather than as someone who makes a point of frequenting the back rooms of Wikipedia. Speaking of which, I'm still struggling to understand your contributions here, and therefore this discussion. You arrived on Wikipedia on 17 April with a level of familiarity with certain procedures that's somewhat surprising, particularly the jargon, your first edits being to nominate this track-list template for deletion, followed by similar, TfD-related activity. As of today, 2 May, you've carried out just a single edit (a revert) in article mainspace in all that time. This particular track-listing is for an album that's far, far from the most notable or celebrated work by any of the artists for whom editors have created such templates. Yet here it is, up for discussion here again. "Gonejackal" has to be a new identity – can I ask who you were before? Perhaps you could activate your user page and make mention there of previous user names – that seems to be fairly standard for editors. JG66 (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As User:SMcCandlish brings up, if the list of tracks on an album is included, in a infobox, why aren't fields for the infobox template created rather than making all these subtemplates that are supposed to be inserted into the substituted infobox template?Gonejackal (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and put its content in a generic, non-hiding track listing template or just put it directly in the article. We cannot have one template for this stuff per album or band, or we'd have thousands upon thousands of redundant templates. No content should be hidden in articles, per MOS:DONTHIDE. Either the content is encyclopedically relevant in the article context in which is it placed, and is visible; or it is not relevant, and should be removed per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE policy. Hidden content is an accessibility and usability problem, as well as a reuse problem, and a printing problem, and .... We just don't do it in articles. We don't care if it's done with navboxes, since they are not considered part of the content of the article per se. The pop music wikiprojects' little "rebellion" against this norm needs to end, here and now (see WP:CONLEVEL policy; wikiprojects do not get to make up their own counter-rules against site-wide consensus). PS: If this template was only to be used in infoboxes (which generally seem to be not quite considered article content, either), some would argue for permitting collapse-boxing. However, we still would never need a profusion of per-album or per-band templates of this sort; just use a stock, generic template and copy-paste in the details in the few articles that need them with regard to this particular list of tracks.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SMcCandlish: Well, I guess the thinking with regard to song infoboxes (in which a template such as this appears) is to reduce the length wherever possible to ensure the 'box doesn't end up encroaching on the article text below. (I say "I guess" – this and other issues are just what I've stumbled on as an editor since 2012; I've had no hand in inventing anything new.) The same approach has seen lists in the Studio and Producer fields, in both album and song infoboxes, occasionally set as collapsed features. But if the situation's as cut-and-dried as you say, across the encyclopaedia, I don't understand how any of the above has come about in the first place. (Well, OK, I'm not that naive …) Is it that set in stone, or are you simply guiding it that way? For example, when investigating a link that's been cited early in this discussion, I saw you'd made a change back in September 2015 that limited, even removed, the leeway that was there previously; two years later, that same altered wording underlines the points you're making here. I don't mean to sound combative – last year, on matters MoS, I much appreciated the opportunity to step away from a writer-editor's headspace and recognise what you personally bring to an area of the encyclopaedia that's pretty foreign to me. But bearing in mind that the first TfD for this Dark Horse tracks template came down to a matter of personal preference among music project editors (as did the 2013 TfD that's cited there as a precedent), I just want to be sure now that it's all on the level with regard to the guideline. I've no interest in pushing to retain this type of template if it's in clear violation of the wording that was agreed on by consensus. JG66 (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current wording in MOS:COLLAPSE seems to allow for some use: "Collapsed or auto-collapsing cells or sections may be used with tables if it simply repeats information covered in the main text (or is purely supplementary, e.g. several past years of statistics in collapsed tables for comparison with a table of uncollapsed current stats). Auto-collapsing is often a feature of navboxes. A few infoboxes also use pre-collapsed sections for infrequently accessed (usually navigational) details. If information in a list, infobox, or other non-navigational content seems extraneous or trivial enough to inspire pre-collapsing it, consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all." (emphasis added). It turns on whether editors see it as extraneous or trivial, not that it's hidden. If in fact infoboxes should not have any hidden text (even it's only for navigation purposes), this should be clearly stated. With recent efforts to streamline music infoboxes, it would be helpful to resolve this. The previous RfC suggested "I suggest holding an RfC to decide what's to be done about these track listings once and for all." The collapsed/hidden issue would be a good place to start. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may respond to you both at once: The key point for TfD is that no template is needed for something like this; it has few uses, won't have an expanding set of them, and the same content can be put into a stock template; and we don't want 1,000 such templates for various albums, artists, etc. The MoS-related stuff doesn't contradict my summary, and I don't think the MoS text is being understood as intended. If the content in the collapsed part of a table is also available in the main prose, then it is not hidden from the reader, an alternative display of it is simply being made optional. "Collapsible", "collapsed by default", and "hidden" are not synonymous. If we intend (and clearly we do) that navboxes' material may be collapsed by default (one form of "hidden") because they're just nav and it piles up, then more "just nav" material in infoboxes, etc. falls under the same exception (there are also sidebar templates, succession boxes, etc.). "What label, like 'infobox', is on the template" has nothing to do with it. It hinges on relevance, yes, but in one direction. "Is this navigational or is this article content?" is a major part of a relevance analysis for such a feature (see WP:REUSE and {{unprintworthy}} for some background on how to tell if something really is content or not). This is different from a "is this collapsed infobox list of guest-remixer appearances on 72 releases, most non-notable, some kind of vital information or just trivial cruft?" analysis. Anyway, if, as the guideline says, alleged trivia should be taken to the talk page for a probably-delete-this-crap discussion, this is the same INDISCRIMINATE point I made, just in different words. The only trivia/relevance policy we have is that one (attempts to establish a trivia or relevance guideline with more detail have failed, though we have many essays on the topic, and MoS has some info about structuring and writing to avoid sections/lists of trivia). The gist being, there's an "is this nav?" test and an "is this pointless crap?" test, both of which are different, though both having something to do with contextual relevance in dissimilar ways.

    I agree there should be an RfC (or multiple RfCs about multiple issues) about these templates and several related bits of weirdness coming out of the popular music wikiprojects. But TfD isn't a venue watched by many, and a wikiproject's talk page will just be the same regulars, aside from maybe a few WP:FRS respondents. I would suggest Village Pump, as it has been used successfully several times before to resolve thorny template issues, including infobox ones in particular. From mostly an observer viewpoint (I don't edit pop music articles much any longer), my feel is that people are trying to cram way too much trivial detail into band, label, producer, etc. infoboxes. This defeats the purpose of infoboxes as quick summaries of the most important (non-complicated) facts the most readers will want. Lists, paragraphs, and sometimes even separate articles (per MOS:SUMMARY and WP:SPINOUT) are a much better approach to such material (and paragraph form can help de-trivialize by providing a narrative and context).

    PS: 2015-10 to 2017-05 is over 1.5 years of stability, which is pretty long in WP time, especially in policypages. Material in major guidelines/policies that survives that long probably represents consensus about best practices, since such pages are heavily watchlisted, scrutinized, "playtested", and argued over, point by point, again and again. (This is much less true of extremely narrow "guidelines" that never went through any WP:PROPOSAL or other vetting process and are just WP:PROJPAGE essays someone slapped a guideline tag on, like the conflicting and redundant MoS and naming convention pages for comic books.
     — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • SMcCandlish, thanks for your comments. Will endeavour to reply shortly – once I've got my head back into this issue. JG66 (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I'm afraid I can't make head or tail of what you're saying. It's just a wall of information in a language I don't speak, conveyed in the tone of a tribal-elder. I mean no offence, McC: you write very well, but you do make it sound as though the governance of a small country is being discussed rather than an online encyclopaedia made up of volunteer contributors! I freely admit my ignorance, of course. I've really nothing to say in response – I've sort of forgotten what it is we were talking about … Best, JG66 (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, since Harrison doesn't have a songs navbox. If one is made (and isn't too unwieldy) then I would support deletion for consistency. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     14:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now this needs to be decided following a discussion of the broader issues in a more appropriate forum: 1) should infoboxes make use of very seldom used (10 to 20 articles) subtemplates, 2) should infoboxes use hidden/collapsed/collapsible content, and 3) are album track listings in infoboxes "extraneous or trivial"? Otherwise, we will be revisiting individual templates over and over and over ... —Ojorojo (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, you said "Added, w/o the collapsed option." in Template talk:Infobox_song#… and a bugbear: partial track listing. Isn't issue 2 resolved? And isn't issue 1 an issue because of "A few infoboxes also use pre-collapsed sections for infrequently accessed (usually navigational) details."?Gonejackal (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2017 (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).

Template:Kao the Kangaroo series

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails the soft requirement at WP:NENAN. Given the age of the series, this is unlikely to expand. Linking is well-established between elements of the series. Izno (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:14, 9 May 2017 (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).

Template:Top level women's association football leagues around the world

[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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too big to be useful already, although not even complete. There are already continental ones: e.g. Template:UEFA women's leagues, Template:CONMEBOL women's leagues which i believe are more usefull. (Maybe those could be linked at bottom of those boxes). Also the Country here is linked to a list of clubs. No real connection, also those lists mostly cover only men's clubs. Koppapa (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well organized and useful. If it needs updating, it should be edited accordingly (not deleted). Hmlarson (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is this less big than the corresponding men's version? --SuperJew (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually I have not found the men's version, when looking if there was one. Thanks. I question its purpose too though. For example there are only 17 European leagues listed. When filled it will be even bigger. Just a huge wall of blue links. -Koppapa (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point is they should be listed together or not at all. --SuperJew (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2017 (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).

Template:Undent

[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).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Outdent2. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Undent with Template:Outdent2.
They are used for the same thing. {{outdent2}} is, seemingly, also more frequently used. Template:Undent should redirect to Template:Outdent2. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 12:56, 9 May 2017 (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).

Template:BHRT

[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template is only used three times, all of which should have the more expansive template, Template:Public broadcasting system in Bosnia and Herzegovina which include all of the navigation links and more, so it is, in effect, redundant. Tuxipεdia(talk) 02:43, 9 May 2017 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_9&oldid=1140200235"