Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 1

< April 30	May 2 >

May 1

All pages in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 see week earlier TFD. Izno (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Unnecessary taxonomy templates

This is a routine nomination of all pages in Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates for deletion. This category is a temporary holding area for taxonomy templates whose deletion will be uncontroversial, because the template is both unused and unnecessary, e.g. because it is incorrectly set up, or relates to a taxon no longer used. Periodically, all templates in this category will be nominated for deletion. These are templates used by the Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system‎; they are never placed directly on articles. The templates nominated here have all been blanked and are no longer in use. For more details, see this talk page thread at Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system. Credit for this explanation goes to Jonesey95 and Plantdrew, as I drew it up by combing their comments from a prior nomination. Tamwin (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's already under discussion, I assume without the taggings. Izno (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sighs. Well, that's a bit of a mess. I'm not going to go change the links on each template though; people can come here and find the link. Sorry for the trouble, everyone. Tamwin (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2021 (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:Cathead the

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 15:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cathead the (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Extremely pointless template, which adds "the ". Such things do not need templates. Subst to where its used. Gonnym (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2021 (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:YahooTV show

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 12:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:YahooTV show (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:YahooTV name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates are broken, with the links leading to the main yahoo.com page. Gonnym (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – a template for another defunct website. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete—serves no useful purpose anymore. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:26, 6 May 2021 (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:TV.com name

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 23:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TV.com name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The whole family of TV.com templates was deleted at this discussion for the reasons that the site is no longer considered a good external link and better alternatives exist. Gonnym (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I assumed this one was included when the rest of the template family was deleted. If it wasn't, it also needs to go. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:52, 3 May 2021 (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:POV

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 do not merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:POV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unbalanced (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:POV with Template:Unbalanced.
I propsed this merge six months ago, as "These seem to be about the same issue."; the closing summary was "...keep separate. The majority of opponents to the proposal feel that any shortcomings and "duplicity" [sic] between the two templates can be cleared up by expanding and/or clarifying the documentation to make it more clear when to use each template. If there are still concerns about usage following these updates/changes, there is no prejudice against re-nomination, but please give a few months for both the changes to be made and to potentially demonstrate that there has been an impact.". Since then, the documentation of neither template has changed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure I have an opinion on the merits yet, but if they're merged the result should look like Template:POV. It's both clearer and better aesthetically. Tamwin (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on how I got here, editing Methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl. It would seem that POV would be the wrong template for this article. POV seems more "political" where "unbalanced" is not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "POV would be the wrong template" So you prefer a template which, according to its own documentation, is for "when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dennis Brown. Vacant0 (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sometimes topics in a given issue are mentioned more than others, per due weight, etc, creating an appearance of imbalance. This is not necessarily a POV issue. The idea of POV/neutrality v imbalance can be two different things entirely. e.g. If 'Congressman Smith' is noted for ten good deeds, and one bad deed, we don't ignore nine of the good deeds to create the appearance of "balance". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwillhickers Wouldn't the use of Template:Undue weight be more appropriate then? - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose They're different. To me, unbalanced means what is presented is all accurate and fair, it's just that there's little information about the other side of things. POV is when the information is not balanced and/or fair, and is also clearly written to attack or excessively defend the topic/subject of the article. Uses x (talk • contribs) 20:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think some commenters here are indicating that WP:UNDUE (undue weight of certain aspects/info) is the message sent by "This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints.", but that wording sounds to me like NPOV, which is confusing. If we want the "unbalanced" template to say something about a violation of due weight, shouldn't it say use a word like "aspects" (the word used at WP:UNDUE)? — Goszei (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The templates cover different scenarios, and nuance would be lost if they were merged. -M.Nelson (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose - The way I've always understood it, the POV template is for articles actively pushing a certain POV by containing POV content, while unbalanced is for those passively pushing a certain POV by not containing specific content. Seems to be slightly nuanced usages. Hog Farm _Talk 16:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The basis of the two warnings is different. Unbalanced content is often geographically unbalanced: it might contain a lengthy discussion of something in the US or UK but no mention of what happens in other usually non-English speaking countries. Ultimately, balance follows from issues like WP:BIAS while POV is a failure of WP:N. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Hog Farm and Uses x. Kakurokuna (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Actually, they are almost the same, but not exactly the same. There are some nuances between them, explained above.--TheEagle107 (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of complaining that no one has updated the documentation, maybe you could, instead, ummm, update the documentation. Just sayin Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2021 (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:Operabase

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 after converting any salvageable links to non-templated links Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template that has ceased to function because the links have died. It currently outputs nothing outside of preview. Used on ~60 pages. If necessary, could be replaced with a normal external link in the future, if there were such available. Izno (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm .. seems to be one of mine. Give me a while to try to remember how templates work so I can see what it does/ what it did and if it can be fixed. I have a metamemory that I had no better response than @Michael_Bednarek when the interface first changed. OTOH, the German language version of this template, used in over 1000 pages, *IS* working.

The website calling interface now requires an id number for the companies, singers, composers etc rather than a textual name. The good news is that deWP seems to have the numbers for their 1000+ links to, eg, Bayerische Staatsoper and Elīna Garanča. It should be straight-forward to rewrite the enWP (after all, the purpose of a template is to isolate the calling interface). I won't be able to look at this until mid-May, so if anyone else would like to volunteer to jump-in, please feel free! Scarabocchio (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood the instructions at de:Vorlage:Operabase. By "Datenbank-ID" they mean the number in the URL for a singer, e.g. "1344" for Anna Netrebko, https://www.operabase.com/artists/anna-netrebko-1344/en, or "1496" for the Metropolitan Opera, https://www.operabase.com/companies/united-states/the-metropolitan-opera-1496/en. A query for a work's performances looks like https://www.operabase.com/productions/en?date_from=2010-01-01&date_to=2017-12-31&aggregation_query=&work_id=5399 for Tannhäuser from 2010 to 2017. I'm undecided whether we should keep the template until somebody (User:Rodomonte? who created the DE template) will fix it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just a question of fixing the template. In DE I had to repair all the links manually, which took a lot of my time. Operabase has also changed their policy. Most of the content is not freely available anymore. Therefore you might consider dropping the template completely. --Rodomonte (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, speaking as one who manually edited 500+ {{Almanacco}} calls, that sounds fairly nightmare-ish (and not a job I would like). I would only note that the page that I randomly accessed from deWP, Elīna Garanča, included a bio and photos, so rather richer than the site was before. There's no info on the source for the bio, but it is not enWP. Scarabocchio (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some singers pay to get a premium account. These pages are much more detailed than the others, and they stay available. But most of the other content has been reduced. For example only the performances of the last two years are still visible for the public. This makes the site very difficult to use as reference. Web archiving is also not working correctly because of the site design with heavy use of ajax techniques. --Rodomonte (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning keep. The Elīna Garanča page looks like WP:ELYES to me, but others like Giuseppe Verdi don't. The number of uses is small enough to be handled manually even though some of the links should be removed. IF it's put in the holding cell we can guarantee it will eventually be dealt with. --Trialpears (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards delete. If useful entries can be found, they can be added to articles as ordinary external links. Their current organisation and practice makes it unsuitable for a template for general use. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2021 (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:MUSEDATA

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 23:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template that has ceased to function because the links have died. It currently outputs nothing outside of preview. Rarely used. If necessary, could be replaced with a normal external link in the future, if there were such available. Izno (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2021 (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:Uttarakhand High Court

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 23:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uttarakhand High Court (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

per WP:NENAN. Apart from the head article, there are only three other specifically relevant navigational links. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 1 May 2021 (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).