Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 5 May 7 >

May 6[edit]

Template:Google Doodle[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 relisting here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 16:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a couple discussions related to the use of Template:Google Doodle, which is now added to pages linked from Google Doodles. However, this template and policy seem to have been implemented without a consensus, and I have seen several users (e.g. @Gobonobo:) raise questions about whether such a template is needed. Indeed, I feel that there are several drawbacks - they add no encyclopedic value to an article, are highlighting the action of an external party (Google) with no relevance to Wikipedia, and clutter the top of the page. What's the distinction between putting an article on Google Doodle articles versus other high-profile articles (or even FATD) that are likely to draw a lot of new users? It's a slippery slope, and there's no encyclopedic value (unlike the templates for recent news events, or those warning of potential biases) for cluttering the top of the *article page* with another template.

I brought this issue to WP:VP but only got one suggestion to move it here to TfD, and wanted to bring this here for general broader discussion and see if we can reach a consensus one way or another. Rather than needing a consensus for deletion of this template, I think we can use this to gauge if there is a consensus for the addition of such a template to articles linked to from Google. If there's no consensus in favor of adding them, then I think the use of such a template should be deprecated (or at the very least shifted to the talk pages). Also pinging @Stillnotelf: so s/he can chime in here too (we were in a discussion at Talk:Hertha Marks Ayrton; also see Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement/Google Doodle task force.) 2607:F6D0:CED:5BA:D022:17D9:F7C1:8AD9 (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waste of time at Sigmund Freud today? Unless we in UK we're not enabled or something. I mean, what is the point? That link to 160th anniversary slide show by Freud Museum could have been added separately. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see this as similar to {{current event}} and {{high traffic}}. Because the topic is featured as the Google Doodle of the day, means it will receive a enhanced amount of traffic. Thus, there would be likely to encountered edit conflicts, and new users to Wikipedia, so this will inform new users of some aspects of Wikipedia, as well as showing longer time users that they may hit edit conflicts (as {{current event}} already does for other types of high viewership articles) -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With one big distinction - {{high traffic}} seems to be placed on the **talk page**, rather than on the article itself, and {{current event}} serves an encyclopedic value (informing the reader that the article may be rapidly changing). @Martinevans123: also raises the good point that Google Doodles differ depending on the country and region, and it makes no sense to have a template that will just confuse readers of a given country. The English Wikipedia is supposed to serve readers from around the world and not just those from a given country. At the very least this template should be on the talk page, but I still think it should be historified and/or deleted. Plus there has never been a consensus to slap these on the articles themselves, and I know you're supposed to ignore all rules and all, but it seems like there needs to be a consensus in order to keep adding this template to articles. 128.12.246.6 (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can see it has a point in terms of {{high traffic}}, and I realise it's only there for a day. But if that's the only reason it's added, it's a bit misleading. Especially if the doodle can't even be seen. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Doodle template has been a part of Wikipedia. I really enjoy seeing it at the top of wiki articles and don't want it deleted. I think that others can really learn from links it provides them about editing rules and such. Ilikeguys21 (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment First: thanks to you, Anon, for pinging me. I'd failed to notice your reply at the Hertha Marks Ayrton talk page. My apologies. Second, that talk page is itself instructive. Hertha Marks Ayrton got a huge amount of anonymous attention from the Google Doodle. It had to be semiprotected for the day as a high-value vandalism target, and there was still interest in edits from non-confirmed users (as evidenced by the large number of edit requests dated to that day). I expect that this pattern of "lots of anonymous attention, one-day semiprotection" is very common for links that get Google Doodled, or Slashdotted, or Reddited, or whatever we're calling it these days. I think a template that warns editors of the disruption, and welcomes anonymous viewers from whatever other site, has value for that reason. I agree that it's not encyclopedic: I think instead that it's a useful part of the user interface. I also want to note that Google Doodle specifically is dated such that the template is only visible on the correct date (you can't see it on Hertha Marks Ayrton now, although you can see the link to this discussion - the template is still present in the wikitext as of this writing). -- stillnotelf is invisible 18:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think we should have it. We don't generally post thing on the page itself acknowledging the page. Even our featured article on the day doesn't say anything on the page itself. If the page is doodled/slashdotted/whatever, then we deal with it as it is, namely a potential report to WP:RFPP and the like. In December, Google news for some oddball reason linked to the discussed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump and Fascism page which created its own chaos but still didn't require any notice. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:55, 11 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:NYCS 111th[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) 16:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, redundant to {{NYCS time 2}}. ~ RobTalk 22:36, 6 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:Valencia City Bukidnon Mayors[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) 16:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, replaced by a wikitable in Valencia City, Bukidnon. ~ RobTalk 22:19, 6 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:Île-de-France tramway Line 1[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 Withdrawn by nominator, given Useddenim's research. Should not have been removed without consensus. ~ RobTalk 09:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, redundant to File:Tram Paris T1 Plan.svg. ~ RobTalk 22:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is not redundant. An RDT like this provides wikilinks to the station articles, and is useful to blind users with screen readers, neither of which are true for the SVG map. The French article uses both the image and their own RDT. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pi.1415926535. Mackensen (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Only unused because Jmajeremy (talk · contribs) removed it on 17 March 2013 without noting anything in the edit summary. Useddenim (talk) 01:20, 9 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:World motor vehicle production by manufacturer in 2006[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 Not enough participation to achieve a consensus on deletion. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Originally created by a now-banned user. ~ RobTalk 22:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Templates are current unused, but i can easily imagine the annual article, that will use them - Automotive industry in 20xx. I think that there is high probability, that this article will be created (and template will be used). --Jklamo (talk) 09:55, 7 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:World motor vehicle production by country in 2003[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 Not enough participation to achieve a consensus on deletion. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and unclear what article these would ever be used in. ~ RobTalk 22:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Templates are current unused, but i can easily imagine the annual articles, that will use them - Economy in 20xx or Automotive industry in 20xx. I am bit surprised, that these articles do not exist (but we have 2003 in paleontology). I think that there is high probability, that these articles will exist (and template will be used). --Jklamo (talk) 09:53, 7 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 university address[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. I realise the sandbox pages were added only yesterday to the nom but they've already been superseded by changes in the parent template's sandbox. Izkala (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

we already have a template for this, it's called {{infobox university}}. if you want to include the street address, you can use |location=. there is no need to fork an infobox for one additional parameter/feature. Frietjes (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • At worst, delete; at best, merge--the user in question seems to have failed to respond to any of the queries at Template talk:Infobox university#Address from several template editors and has instead decided to fork the template. Maybe to make a WP:POINT? Discussion about the address for a university should continue on the talk page of Infobox university. --Izno (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My communication at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#RfC: Address is obvious and documented. To say the user in question seems to have failed to respond to any of the queries is about as far from the truth as possible. I am the only one there carrying on a coherent conversation. Starting off a debate with an overt and insulting lie is not a good position. Trackinfo (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm assuming this is an innocent mistake with the editor misunderstanding the request to test the new parameter before requesting it be added to a widely-used template. In any case, it's an unneeded fork. ElKevbo (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would be happy for the technical assistance. I do not have the know how to build templates of this complexity. I took this as a direct instruction to follow WP:TESTCASES from the conversation. There are no transclusions at this time, so it is not really public. But it needs to be in mainspace so all functionality is available (user sandboxes block certain functions). This has been a lengthy process, here is the story: The parameter in question, inserting the "address" for a college or university does not function. There are multiple templates where multiple users have added it and it does not work. I tried to solve it by requesting it be activated. Rather than making an attempt to solve the problem, I encountered a couple of users who expressed their opinion that an address does not belong in the template. I showed the comparison where the address was listed on Infobox school and one went so far as to suggest it should be removed from infobox school. After finding a brick wall in these users, I opened up an RfC for this specific issue. After more than a month of discussion, the RfC was closed with the decision that an address parameter is valid, though a single address is not applicable in some cases. Here's the exact statement from the closing admin "There is clear consensus that the school's address is an appropriate piece of information to include in an infobox, but only in cases where the school/university is located at a single address. In cases where a university is not located at a single address, this information should generally not appear in the infobox. While many "yes" voters did not directly address the issue of spread-out campuses, their rationales frequently emphasized the importance of including objective and non-ambiguous facts in infoboxes. In the case of a spread-out campus, the address is no longer an objective fact. ~ RobTalk 04:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC) That's a reasonable decision that can handled by mere mortal editors on a case by case basis. I again asked for the parameter to be activated and I still get blocked by people who are acting out their opinion that it does not belong, even to the point of misrepresenting the consensus that was declared on the RfC. And now the final message before I created this was more reasonable; that the template needed to be tested. That is what this template is trying to do. So, I am more than willing to have someone with the proper technical knowledge assist in making the address parameter work in the same fashion that it already works in infobox school. When this test template functions, it can be renamed and replace the existing infobox university. Trackinfo (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the advice of John of Reading I have moved this to Template:Infobox university/sandbox/address Technical assistance still needed. Trackinfo (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The template seems to be working now. The next question is how to prove that and to advance to replacing the existing template.Trackinfo (talk) 01:41, 9 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:Children of Louis XIV[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) 16:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, created 6 years ago. ~ RobTalk 09:20, 6 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:Costa Rica Squad 2012 FIFA Futsal World Championship[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) 16:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, no useful navigation, and this team didn't win the tournament so precedent is that they wouldn't get a template. ~ RobTalk 09:17, 6 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:Crime in North America[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, unused. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and redundant to templates like {{Latin America and the Caribbean topic}}, which accepts an unnamed parameter to display articles, as seen in Crime in El Salvador. ~ RobTalk 09:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] 

{{North America topic
|name   = Crime in North America
|title  = [[Crime]] in [[North America]]
|prefix = Crime in
}}
-- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's also redundant to {{North America topic}}, yes, although I think it's usually desirable to link more specific templates rather than the full North American one. ~ RobTalk 16:55, 14 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:Croxley Rail Link RDT[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 withdrawn by nominator. ~ RobTalk 16:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Railways around Watford and Rickmansworth RDT}} ~ RobTalk 09:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the templates are different; one shows the Croxley link with the parts of the old line which it will reuse, whereas the other covers all the lines past, present and future in the area. What makes them look similar is the colour scheme used. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lamberhurst: I also should have specified that the template I nominated is entirely unused, and has been since at least April 2014, when the last unused templates database report was pulled. A minor variant that will never be used in an article doesn't warrant its own template. ~ RobTalk 09:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BU Rob13: Thanks - I have now put it back into the Croxley article. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Lamberhurst: Why is this preferred to {{Railways around Watford and Rickmansworth RDT}}, which shows more? ~ RobTalk 09:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • @BU Rob13: Because {{Croxley Rail Link RDT}} deals specifically with the Croxley line, whereas the other brings together all the different lines in the area including those which have no connection with the Croxley scheme. With railway line articles the usual practice is to have a RDT which deals principally with the route at hand. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for the explanation. Withdrawn now that it's in use and that use seems appropriate. ~ RobTalk 16:51, 14 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:Cork Hurling Team 1980[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) 16:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Runner-up squad. Should be deleted per precedent. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_28#Template:Cork_Hurling_Team_1979. ~ RobTalk 09:10, 6 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:WikiProject New England Patriots[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 to May 27 (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template is basically duplicative now that Template:WikiProject National Football League now allows for a patriots parameter that goes to the same WikiProject link. This template only puts the articles into Category:WikiProject New England Patriots articles while the NFL template puts them into Category:New England Patriots articles by quality. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically I guess I'm asking for it to be merged into Template:WikiProject National Football League with "patriots=yes". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:WikiProject New England Patriots exists as a separate wikiproject, so it should have its own WikiProject banner available. If you were to merge the WikiProject away into becoming a taskforce of the NFL project, then we could eliminate the banner, but as it is a separate project, it should have a banner available. And I don't think that every Patriots topic necessarily needs to be considered part of the NFL project unless the two projects are merged -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 05:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The projects are merged. Template:WikiProject National Football League links directly to the same separate WikiProject. There's no separate subgroup anywhere. Ok, it should be a replace the separate template with instances of the NFL template with the patriots parameter since every Patriots page will necessarily include the NFL structure within it. There's no independent importance category or anything that requires a separate template so the old template only exists if you want to put a page in the Patriots category without it being the NFL category and there's literally no reason to do that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:00, 11 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:San Fernando, Tamaulipas Radio[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. One editor offered redirection as a possibility, but there are no transclusions of this template, so it seems unlikely that redirect would be useful. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 16:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template had just one transclusion (at XHSFT-FM) and was not an aid to navigation. I rescued two similar templates by moving them for other cities in Mexico, but I don't have a target in mind for this one and it has already been removed from the articles in question with no incoming links whatsoever. Raymie (t • c) 06:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Templates of this type are permitted for markets which have a sizeable number of stations to link, but are not necessary for markets where there are only two stations (there are three links listed, but one of them is just a rebroadcaster of one of the other two, and even one of the two is just a rebroadcaster of a statewide service on which this template hasn't been used at all.) The statewide template {{Tamaulipas Radio}} is sufficient for small markets like this, with no need for a dedicated spinoff. Delete, or redirect to {{Tamaulipas Radio}}. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bearcat: I should point out I created {{Tamaulipas Radio}} to relieve the duties of this template as well as Ciudad Camargo Radio and Ciudad Miguel Alemán Radio. Those had one and three incoming transclusions, respectively, and I've since moved them to other Mexican cities entirely where navboxes made sense as {{Puerto Vallarta Radio}} (on a state line, so the articles were split between Jalisco and Nayarit) and {{León Radio}} (sufficient number of stations). Raymie (t • c) 03:07, 9 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:Tamaulipas Radio Markets[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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 16:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subsumed into Template:Mexico Radio Markets which now links to the same templates and is transcluded in its place. Raymie (t • c) 06:07, 6 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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_6&oldid=1039229156"