Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 29
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
July 29
Template:External music video
Template:Infobox settlement/ukr
- 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. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Redundant fork of {{Infobox settlement}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
From my talk page: I find Category:Populated places in Ukraine and see, that many articles are without Infoboxes. Then I try to use Template:Infobox settlement. Then I see, that some parameters are repeating for articles Category:Populated places in Ukraine and some parameters of Template:Infobox settlement do not use.--Амба (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Anyone can create new template without any discussion. Template:Infobox settlement is protected. I can't edit. Template:Infobox settlement include Template:Location map. Template:Infobox settlement/ukr include Template:Location map2. Template:Location map do not work with location map templates with x, y parameters. Template:Location map2 include function of automatic_position--Амба (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- That is why there is a talk page. If the main template is missing a field or feature, discuss it. Someone may have a better way to do it. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
-
- Some of fields or features of Template:Infobox settlement are odd for settlements in Ukraine.--Амба (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
-
- Delete Redundant. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
-
-
- Next candidates for deletion because of redundant?.--Амба (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
-
- Keep There are many strange in Template:Infobox settlement. For example, parameter coordinates_format = dms do not work in article Previous revision of Khoruzhivka (Khoruzhivka) one time--Амба (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- With data entered as latitude of 50.911971044388245, longitude of 33.814570916131977, what do you expect? It's GIGO, not a fault of the template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
You want, that all articles about Ukrainian settlements contains the same code?--Амба (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
| native_name_lang = uk | pushpin_map = Ukraine | latNS = N | longEW = E | coordinates_display = inline,title | subdivision_type = Country | subdivision_name =Ukraine | subdivision_type1 = Oblast (province) | subdivision_type2 = Raion (district) | established_title = Established | population_density_km2 = auto | timezone = EET | utc_offset = +2 | timezone_DST = EEST | utc_offset_DST = +3 | postal_code_type = Postal code | area_code_type = Area code(s)
--Амба (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete – work with {{Infobox settlement}}, designed to work for any country. Occuli (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- By your logic it need to delete all templates in Category:United Kingdom city infobox templates, Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality - they can be replaced with {{Infobox settlement}}.--Амба (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- United Kingdom city infobox templates I'd certainly be overjoyed to replace with infobox settlement but a ton of WP:OWNers would turn up to keep to it, but such is the complexity of Russian places that they need seperate infoboxes. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- By your logic it need to delete all templates in Category:United Kingdom city infobox templates, Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality - they can be replaced with {{Infobox settlement}}.--Амба (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep – the template is based on
{{Infobox settlement}}and I regard it thus as an extension/restriction with the boilerplate, and one that is useful enough to keep. It seems pointless to have to specify all this manually in every Uktrainian article when it's boilerplate – that's what templates are for. I am aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but analogies at, for example {{Expand French}} (why not just use {{Expand language}} and so on, templates are frequently built on other templates and I see no difficulty with that. Si Trew (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)- It is a forked copy of {{tld|Infobox settlement} - that should be strongly discouraged. See my reply to the following !vote Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep If it was only one or two parameters that were set in the template then I would say delete but as there are quite a few, I would say keep as it makes it easier to keep to a standard for Ukraine. The proper way though would be if Infobox settlement had a county parameter which could be set which would then use a set of built-in defaults for that country, but it doesn't so this is the best alternative. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is not the best alternative; it is exactly the wrong way to achieve such a purpose. The correct way would be a template which in turn calls {{Infobox settlement}}, like the several Templates calling Infobox settlement which already exist. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- That was done with this change; my comment (and yours) are six days later than that. Si Trew (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is not the best alternative; it is exactly the wrong way to achieve such a purpose. The correct way would be a template which in turn calls {{Infobox settlement}}, like the several Templates calling Infobox settlement which already exist. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Indifferent So long as this template simply calls {{infobox settlement}}, filling in some of the standard information, I am indifferent to its usage. Having such subtemplates does help with standardization and increasing uniformity if done properly. One should make sure that (1) only the essential parameters are filled in, (2) it calls {{infobox settlement}} to do most everything, (3) any parameter names that are passed through exactly match the parameter names used by {{infobox settlement}}, to avoid confusion for editors, and (4) the name matches a standard predictable naming convention. However, I am not entirely convinced that any of this is necessary since the number of fields being prefilled is still somewhat low. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
-
- I am convinced to keep because I think the number of fields is enough, considering the number of articles (geostubs) it is likely to be used on. WP:CRYSTAL does not, I think, apply to templates only articles: so is this likely to make it easier for people to expand Ukrainian stubs into fuller articles? My own experience expanding Hungarian stubs with, first, {{Magyar telepules infobox}} which used Hungarian names and died, then {{Infobox Hungarian settlement}} which used English names and got to AfD but was kept with "keep for now", shows it is.
-
- I entirely agree that these should come under the cuddly blanket of Infobox settlement in general as subtemplates, although I disagree in the particular mentioned above about it being "by country" (I think there's a typo there "by county"); but by any important region subtemplates could override the basic behaviour of Infobox settlement. The TfD is basically saying "delete this because everything can be done by Infobox settlement" – yes it can but then everything can be done by writing it out longhand. I should mark that those in favour of deleting helper templates like this can not run to MoS or anything saying Infobox settlement must be used, and I for myself find it so clumsy that if there is a wholehearted attempt to ban specialized templates I shall simply include the infobox longhand and forget about
{{Infobox settlement}}all together. The balance is whether the stuff this fills in for the average editor but not template editor makes it a help or a hindrance. In my opinion, it makes it a help.
- I entirely agree that these should come under the cuddly blanket of Infobox settlement in general as subtemplates, although I disagree in the particular mentioned above about it being "by country" (I think there's a typo there "by county"); but by any important region subtemplates could override the basic behaviour of Infobox settlement. The TfD is basically saying "delete this because everything can be done by Infobox settlement" – yes it can but then everything can be done by writing it out longhand. I should mark that those in favour of deleting helper templates like this can not run to MoS or anything saying Infobox settlement must be used, and I for myself find it so clumsy that if there is a wholehearted attempt to ban specialized templates I shall simply include the infobox longhand and forget about
-
- There was a ridiculous argument to rename it to {{Infobox populated place}} which just shows how much concern the people who advocate the
{{Infobox settlement}}template as a cure-all have for the people who actually use it when expanding geostub articles. Er, let's think of a longer, less inimical name for the thing cos it is somehow more accurate to fit a category. Er my dears, how about "{{Infobox place}}"? I could argue that Infobox settlement could derive, itself, from Infobox place being any sodding place on the planet that has no population at all, but we are not here to build class hierarchies or do taxonomy, we are here to make useful templates that are actually used.
- There was a ridiculous argument to rename it to {{Infobox populated place}} which just shows how much concern the people who advocate the
-
- The argument, or rather not argument but bald statement, to delete as redundant forgets that at the top of the page it says "The template is redundant to a better-designed template". They forget the "better-designed template bit". Infobox settlement is rightly a base template that is all things to all people, it can quite happily be specialized, and better designed, for particular reasons. Ukr is not redundant by those words, it is a complimentary, additional tool in the toolbox. Si Trew (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- The better design of {{Infobox settlement}} notwithstanding, the wording you cite is followed by "Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- The argument, or rather not argument but bald statement, to delete as redundant forgets that at the top of the page it says "The template is redundant to a better-designed template". They forget the "better-designed template bit". Infobox settlement is rightly a base template that is all things to all people, it can quite happily be specialized, and better designed, for particular reasons. Ukr is not redundant by those words, it is a complimentary, additional tool in the toolbox. Si Trew (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- From experience of doing it the other way, I firmly believe that it's desirable to have an open beta on a sample of articles, to prove the need for a change to a fully protected template. In the absence of strong arguments either way, I believe the best course of action is to keep, on the understanding that the benefits and drawbacks of the changes will be studied carefully, and that in the longer term it will be merged into its parent if it becomes redundant. --WFC-- 09:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's why we have sandboxes and test-case pages. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep—because of procedural concern over the misuse of the current deletion criteria. The use of the term "redundant" in this context is inappropriate as this template inherits from the {{Infobox settlement}} template. Thus, as far as I can discern, at present there is no documented consensus criteria for deleting this template. However, some form of merger would be an acceptable alternative, or else a revision to the deletion criteria.—RJH (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- The template, as nominated, did not "inherit from the {{Infobox settlement}} template" - it was a fork of it. There is no "documented consensus criteria" for deleting any template, other than the process conducted on this page. Your procedural objection would there fore seem to be without basis. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - The template is only used on one page, Bohuslav, and it's only purpose is to preload the {{Infobox settlement}} infobox with a couple of Ukraine-specific items. If the {{Infobox settlement}} syntax is overly confusing (and I don't think it is), then the solution is to make it less confusing, not spawn a bunch of country-specific templates. SnottyWong confabulate 17:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Snottywong. Airplaneman ✈ 23:36, 12 August 2010 (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:GAList/check
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was No consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Template:GAList/check (|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)
- Template:Sym (|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)
Both templates are good, but have the same purpose. I documented {{sym}} since it had none, I forget how I came across it (badly categorized I imagine), but it seems better to me to have a top-level template than one as a subtemplate of a particular process; I think at this point WP:COMMON beats any kind of provenance, though history could be preserved if it is useful. I note my documentation (for which I did not consult that of GAList/Check) is roughly same as that, and can only say good job on both parties there (slaps self on back), since undocumented templates are next to useless in my opinion. Si Trew (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't care, but your marking of the GAList one has busted formatting on uses of that template, see Talk:Temple Israel (Memphis, Tennessee)/GA1 for example. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- GAList/check is used in hundreds of pages, and Sym was actually copy&pasted from GAList/check. If anything, the two should be histmerged, and GAList/check should remain as a redirect.
However, I don't see the harm in having both a specialized GA process template and a general purpose symbols template. The two templates have different semantics, and may well develop in different directions. For example, changing the set of GA process images at some point in the future should not have an effect on the symbol produced by e.g. {{sym|+}}:
. Merging them would make any future symbol changes difficult. 88.217.27.119 (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Good article Wikiproject notified. Airplaneman ✈ 06:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep both—no real reason to delete. –Grondemar 03:56, 5 August 2010 (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.