Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 April 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

April 21[edit]

Template:K. Balachander sidebar[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:K. Balachander sidebar (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Three links, all appearing in the K. Balachander article. Better served by a see also section. Vieque (talkctb) 19:41, 21 April 2014 (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:Infobox big thing[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 after replacing buildings with {{Infobox building}} and sculptures with {{Infobox artwork}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox big thing (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Only twelve transclusions. Redundant to {{Infobox building}} or {{Infobox artwork}}, depending on subject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • By their nature, the works are both buildings and artworks, hence the reasoning for a combined template. - Bilby (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Example conversions are artwork and building; there is no need for a combined template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Example conversions don't really tell a lot. Fundamentally, these are works of art (ugly, kitschy art), that are also buildings. Some will be more along the lines of sculptures, and some will be more along the lines of buildings, but each structure is a mix of both. Having a combined template to cover the group of things allows for coverage of both aspects. - Bilby (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
        • There's nothing stopping you from including two infoboxes if one doesn't suffice. It doesn't make sense to have some sort of chimera infobox for these rare cases. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Honestly, two infoboxes for a single item seems uglier than having a single, minor infobox. I'm not sure how that would be a better approach. - Bilby (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant to {{Infobox building}}. Many notable buildings are also works of art, which is why infobox buildings already includes parameters about the architectural style, designers, creators, etc. Materials should be added to IB building, unless there is a project-wide consensus that such a parameter is not desirable. Using Infobox artwork is unnecessary in all instances.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    • You are making the assumption that these are necessarily buildings. Some are definitely buildings, some are sculptures, many are both. - Bilby (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    • To give an example, Map the Miner is in this category. It is clearly not a building, however it has attributes better described as building-like. In this case it was destroyed and rebuilt in a different material, but it is still regarded as the same object. Infobox:Building doesn't properly describe it, but Infobox:Artwork doesn't really cover it either. - Bilby (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
      • All statues, regardless of their size, should use {{Infobox artwork}} exclusively, since {{Infobox statue}} redirects to that template.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
        • It seems that we are going in circles. :) - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Not really. You're arguing that there's some unique convergence between art and structure in this disparate collection of objects which warrants a custom infobox, and people are disagreeing with you. Personally I'd use {{infobox artwork}} for anything that literally wasn't designed to house people, {{infobox building}} for the rest, and both in the rare case that one couldn't accommodate all the important aspects required of the infobox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
            • I simply can't see the value of using two infoboxes for one object. If the objects are not covered fully by building or artwork, then the logical answer seems to be to use a box that covers both. I don't have a lot invested in this, (it is just an infobox, after all), but I'm a bit at a loss to understand why using two infoboxes is better than using one specialised one. Is there a significant problem with having a specialised infobox, where it can't be fully replaced by a single existing one? Or to put it another way, I can understand saying this isn't used at all, let's delete it, or this can be fully encompassed by another infobox, let's consolidate, but I'm not sure what the reasoning is for saying that it can't be fully encompassed by another infobox, and it is used, but because it isn't used a much we delete and leave editors to find a workaround. I presume that there is a rationale, but I'm not sure what it is. What are the main drivers for the process in general? - Bilby (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • delete after replacing with {{infobox artwork}}, which may require adding parameters to the artwork template. Frietjes (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete after it has been orphaned by hand on a case-by-case basis. Given the mixture of parameters, it's not reasonable to just blanket replace things here. --NYKevin 04:47, 30 April 2014 (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:Infobox dava[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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox dava (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Infobox Pre-Columbian site (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:Infobox ancient site (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox dava and Template:Infobox Pre-Columbian site into Template:Infobox ancient site.
These are forms of "ancient site"; the infoboxes have mostly similar fields. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support The more global and consistent these templates are, the more useful and comparable data can be displayed and made usable. See also: Template:Infobox Pre-Columbian site PatHadley (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I would support merging all features of Infobox dava, Infobox Pre-Columbian site and Infobox ancient site resulting an infobox would have enough expressive power to cover multiple aspects of ancient sites. That would be nice but from the point of view of Wikidata, I'm not sure if this would have an effect (positive or negative) or no effect (I hope a positive effect). Since infobox is metadata, there should be a relationship between the articles about ancient sites, the infoboxes used there and the corresponding terms from Wikidata. On Wikidata "dava" and "Pre-Columbian site" terms would be sub-classed terms of a more general term. Here is a contradiction between the sub-classing model of Wikidata going from general to specific and the infobox model that is going now from specific to general/global; and I think this is a common issue of generalized infoboxes. Perhaps the impact on Wikidata should be assessed first, before the merging. -- Saturnian (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't see any reason why we need to let Wikidata drive how we structure infoboxes (and I speak as a committed Wikidata advocate). We can use a |type= parameter to indicate that an ancient site is a Dava, pre-Columbian, or something else. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, then it's fine => support. Thanks, Saturnian (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Pigsonthewing, including the metadata, parameter, etc. material. Sums it up well.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:40, 22 April 2014 (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:Infobox tornado intercept vehicle[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox tornado intercept vehicle (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2014 (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:Infobox bathhouse[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 merged Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox bathhouse (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Only three transclusions Unused. Redundant to {{Infobox building}} (or some other infobox). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 21 April 2014 (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:Infobox PAhistoric[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 for now. But, please feel free to continue the discussion elsewhere. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox PAhistoric (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

Fork of {{Infobox NRHP}}. We don't need forks of US national templates for individual states. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep. The template is absolutely necessary because non-NRHP listed sites, landmarks and designations are outside of the scope of the NRHP project and infobox as well as the Infobox historic. Further explanation for the necessity of the infobox has previously been provided on template's talk page. CrazyPaco (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    • For non-NRHP sites, we have other infoboxes, such as {{Infobox building}}, {{Infobox ancient site}}. Why, do you think, do PA sites need a special infobox when other US states, and other US countries, don't need one? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
      • As described on the templates talk page, a proposal in July, 2010 requested incorporation of PA historic markers into the Historic Sites infobox, but the request was met with resistance because a small number of Historic Sites wikiproject members had issues with the inclusion of Pennsylvania historic markers because such markers were, in their opinion, beyond the scope of how they wanted to narrowly define what a "historic site" is (see the discussion). The discussion and subsequent ones ended without resolution or action. This unfortunately meant that the project's (see List of Pennsylvania state historical markers) only recourse to accommodate articles about Pennsylvania-designated historic sites that were not listed on the NRHP was to create a PA marker infobox under the Pennsylvania wikiproject. With that being the case, a new infobox was created to match the NRHP one, both in style and functionality for ease of adoption, as well as for Wikipedia template/article consistency. It is also set up to provide complete customization of the "other designations" so that it could be used for other non-NRHP listings outside of Pennsylvania. The absolute preference of this editor would be to incorporate this infobox template into the Historic Site one, which could be done easily, but until a consensus is reached to achieve its inclusion, the only alternative is a stand alone infobox. As far as using infobox Building or Ancient site templates, due to their implementation of the Designation template, neither appears to allow for historic designations that are not already incorporated into Historic Sites template designations, and therefore those templates do not solve the above problem of the intransigence encountered when trying to incorporate the Pennsylvania Historical Marker program into Historic Sites (nor for the case of buildings do the Pennsylvania historic sites program necessarily designate structures, but also trails, archeological sites, political entities, etc). CrazyPaco (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per CrazyPaco. There's no harm in keeping it, either. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Necessary for historic sites that are not listed on the NRHP, so they don't apply for {{Infobox NRHP}}. Agree with CrazyPaco.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with CrazyPaco. --Thnidu (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Agree with CrazyPaco.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Per WP:COMMONSENSE, there is a need for articles that don't fit the NRHP yet still are encyclopedic for local classifications. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 04:12, 25 April 2014 (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:InlineXbeg[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:InlineXbeg (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)
Template:InlineXend (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2014 (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:Infosection[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infosection (edit|talk|history|links|logs|delete)

unused and redundant to other non-articlespace sectioning templates. Frietjes (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2014 (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:Infobox venue[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 relisted on 2014 May 5 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:02, 5 May 2014 (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.