Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 23

< July 22	July 24 >

July 23[edit]

Template:Food industry criticism[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. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 20:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Food industry criticism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A clear example of a WP:POVFORK. A generic food industry template should be made and criticism be made a section of it. Additionally there are potential problems with WP:SYNTH and WP:OR arising from what was chosen to be placed in this template. AioftheStorm (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this template because several articles that dealt with the subjects in the template just linked to each other in their "See also" section. I thought a template was a cleaner way to deal with linking to similar subjects. I don't have a problem with a general "Food industry" template, but with all the content of this template and more for a general one, I'm afraid it would become HUGE and unusable. Anyway, I think it serves a purpose and should be kept. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the template cleans up the previous info, and does well at serving its purpose, but I disagree with the purpose it is serving and elaborate down below.AioftheStorm (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strange combination of subjects. The Banner talk 19:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe fears over synth and or may not apply as the films and articles covered are specifically covering criticism of the food industry. I would not be opposed to making to a general food industry template - although it may become too large. An alternative way may be to make it something along the lines of 'Media on the Food Industry'. This would allow for a template including these films and books, but also allow for less critical media to be added - without trying to cover the whole food industry. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with synth comes from the placement of food safety issues from disparate times and places within the same context to imply they are comparable in some way, without a source placing these within the same context for us. How is Upton Sinclair's criticism of meatpacking plants in early 1900s USA related to food safety incidents in contemporary China? If they were specifically covering the same thing, then okay maybe, but Earthlings is a look at animal cruelty in general, from pet ownership to cosmetics, Super Size Me is a criticism of fast food, and The World According to Monsanto is a criticism of the corporate practices of a seed and herbicide producer, this media is clearly only barely tangentially related to one another.AioftheStorm (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - This true of any temple. Just because two articles are on a template doesn't mean they are linked to one another - just that they are linked to the templates topic. For example Template:Social sciences features Law and Food Studies - the template isn't trying to suggest these are comparable.Jonpatterns (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - What's true of any template is that there are sources linking the topics together. Law and Food studies are commonly placed in categories of social sciences, Earthlings and The Jungle are not commonly compared to one another by sources.AioftheStorm (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps some entries in this template could be removed but for so long as Wikipedia has enough articles on food industry criticism to fill a navigational box, it seems fine to have that box. If this were made into a food industry navigational box then the criticism would be overly represented. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- so long as Wikipedia has enough articles on food industry criticism to fill a navigational box
- So are you saying you would be fine with the creation of a Template:Criticism of homosexuality, and then having that template placed at the bottom of every article about a piece of media that is critical of homosexuality, because we have a lot more media on that than we do this. We have enough material to make Template:Criticism of X templates for hundreds of topics, but we don't because we specifically disallow such pov forks.AioftheStorm (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't how many articles are present on Criticism of Homosexuality or on Criticism of the Food Industry. I don't see why the quantity is important? I imagine that the Criticism of Homosexuality articles all have links to the other article on the same subject under See Also. Unless you think using a template somehow gives it extra weight? I'm not opposed to making the template something along the lines on Media about the Food industry. That why any perceived negative connotations are removed, it would work with the example too - Media about Homosexuality.Jonpatterns (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the quantity is important?

This was in direct response to the user above me who argued that if the quantity is large enough to fill a template then it seems fine to have that template.

I imagine that the Criticism of Homosexuality articles all have links to the other article on the same subject under See Also.

There is a huge body of anti-homosexual media out there, individual articles cannot and do not link to them all in their see also sections.

Lastly, my main concern is NPOV which a "Media on X" template would satisfy. If nothing else a renaming of this template to "Food industry media" would at the very least humor my concerns.AioftheStorm (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Frεcklεfσσt's argument Ollieinc (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Drunk In A Dumpster[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; deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Drunk In A Dumpster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not an actual template for anything. Whpq (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but possibly salvage content as an article? --Zfish118 (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you believe there is salvageable content, you may want to look at User:Carbuncle138/sandbox and comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Carbuncle138/sandbox. I really don't see what content is salvageable from this mess.-- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Highway[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) 01:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{jct}} already supports the function of this template for every state in the US, every province of Canada, all of their territories, and many countries around the world. Since jct is widely used by the various highway projects, it is well-maintained, and this template was easily orphaned by replacing it with jct. Imzadi 1979 → 05:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an “on-again-off-again” project that I simply haven’t worked on for a while. The template also support generic square and round/oval route markers (which {{jct}} does not do). Also, {{jct}} is not suitable for use in Route Diagram Templates because it breaks their formatting and flow. Useddenim (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A few points: {{jct}} doesn't need to support "generic" square or circle markers, because it supports the actual markers for every state, province, and territory in the US and Canada plus many foreign countries. This includes the states that do use the circle or square as their marker. {{jct}} also supports the banner plates above the marker for alternate/business/bypass/connector/truck routes, it properly handles disambiguating links when there are multiple highways by the same number in a state, and it links directly to the state-specific sub-article for an Interstate or US Highway, all things {{highway}} cannot do. Lastly, it is suitable for use in those templates, and it is in use in them already. See {{WMATA Red Line}}, {{BART Red Line}}, {{Sugar House Streetcar}}, {{M-1 Rail route diagram}}, and many more. Imzadi 1979 → 21:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you're saying that editors should use {{jct}} with its 27 parameters (but surprisingly no way to adjust the icon size) as a replacement for a simple, streamlined template? I admit that {{Highway}} certainly needs more work, but {{jct}} certainly didn't spring into existence fully fleshed out with its thousands of bytes of code and dependent upon dozens of sub-templates.
    I haven't figures out the pattern of circumstances yet, but in some cases {{jct}} does breaks the formatting. I don't understand why you're engaging in such insistent POV pushing to eliminate this template. Useddenim (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you need to read the link to the subsection of Wikipedia:NPOV dispute you supplied, and once you absorb its details, you'll need to retract a personal attack you just made in your last reply. Neutral point of view refers to the presentation of content in articles; editors should be expected to have opinions in situations like this, and they should be allowed to express them in a civil fashion to advance their viewpoints. And for the record, {{jct}} does not have "dozens of sub-templates"; rather it has just one, a few testcase pages, a sandbox and some documentation pages. Over 3/4 of those entries are for other templates used to make road junction list tables, names which just start with "jct". Imzadi 1979 → 01:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Deliberate obfuscation on your part, Imzadi1979: somehow I don’t think that {{jct}} would work too well without its 125 Modules. (That’s almost 10½ dozen, considerably more than the “just one” sub-template you claim.) Useddenim (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You claimed subtemplates, and I corrected you; you weren't talking about Lua modules. As for modularity, why is that a bad thing? Each of those modules compactly contains the coding to call up the proper marker/shield graphic, call up the proper link, abbreviate the link appropriately, and set the proper sizing for the highways in a single state, province, territory or country. These modules are also used by {{routelist row}} for the individual rows in tables like List of Interstate Highways in Michigan and for things like the graphics/links in the browse boxes at the bottom of {{infobox road}}. If there were a compelling reason to fork the function of {{jct}} into {{highway}}, the latter could also be using those modules to simply programming and instantly support many jurisdictions' highways at once.
      Remember, {{highway}} only supports two states, two provinces, attempts to support Interstates and US Highways, and has a "generic" circle for anything else. Imagine the amount of coding you'd have to insert into that template to get 48 more states, 8 more provinces, the District of Columbia and 8 total territories between the US and Canada. Also, modularized programming like this is actually an asset. Each time you change {{highway}} to add a state/province/territory, the servers will have to recache all of the existing transclusions, but if I edit the Michigan module, only the Michigan-related articles are recached. That speeds up deployment of changes substantially. Imzadi 1979 → 21:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - You still haven't satisfactorily explained why you don't want to let me to continue to develop {{Highway}}. Will it really break Wikipedia to have an extra template? Useddenim (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        See WP:T3, which is policy. This is a substantial duplication of the jct template. {{jct}} will, and does, handle the function of {{highway}}, and it does so for provinces and states you haven't implemented yet. Imzadi 1979 → 04:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        My intention is/was to create a simpler/smaller template than {{jct}} with icon images that are less obtrusive, for use in WP:RDTs. Similar? yes; a subset? yes; needs work and better coding? yes; substantial duplication? NO! IMO, with {{jct}} you're trying to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Useddenim (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Looking only at two-digit Interstate/U.S. markers, there's a 3-pixel difference. For three-digit Interstate/U.S. markers, there's a 6.4-pixel difference in height. (The highway template is keeping them at a constant 17-pixel width, yet the three-digit markers are 25% wider, meaning the height drops to 13.6 pixels.) If by meaning "less obtrusive" you mean that the default output links the graphic to the article instead of supplying a text link, that's also bad since it's running against the accessibility advice at WP:ALT, something we fixed in jct about 5–6 years ago. If jct has extra functions you don't need, ignore them when you use it; a Swiss Army knife is still a great pocket knife. (jct is not using "excessive force" or doing something "overzealously" to accomplish its task of displaying the appropriate graphic in a format that complies with accessibility advice followed by the appropriately disambiguated text link.) Imzadi 1979 → 10:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        A valid point about width, but an easy coding fix: the height should actually be fixed at 17 pixels. Useddenim (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete, assuming the necessary functionality is really provided by {{jct}}. Frietjes (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the necessary functionality is really provided already. Both templates call the appropriate graphic for a highway marker. {{jct}} supports every state- or territory-maintained highway type in the United States, plus things like county roads and specific markers for toll roads. It also supports all of the types of highways in Canada, Australia and several other countries. After jct calls the appropriate graphic, it supplies a text link to the appropriate article, and in the US for Interstates or US Highways, it links to the appropriate state-detail article. jct also has additional parameters to add intermodal icons and destination cities/locations listed on highway guide signs when used in the context of highway junction lists, junctions that wouldn't be needed in the railroad uses.
  In comparison, {{highway}} uses the graphic itself as the link, a behavior not common on Wikipedia. It also cannot link Interstates or US Highways to the state-specific link. In some cases, that means it will link to a disambiguation page ("Interstate 275" is a dab page, and the articles are "Interstate 275 (Michigan)" for each state's highway). — Imzadi1979 01:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]
  Using the graphic as the link is common practice in railway Route Diagram Templates, as space is often at a premium (the diagram is an adjunct to the article, as opposed to the use of {{jct}} in a road article where it is in a table in the article body), and roads and connections—the typical use of auxiliary icons—are secondary to the rail route itself. Useddenim (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- On Template:Brown Line (Pittsburgh), the 7th row down relies on hand-coded supplemental links to the state-specific US 22 and US 30 articles. Compare I-376 / U.S. 22 / U.S. 30 vs. I-376 / US 20 / US 30. Imzadi 1979 → 01:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, compare indeed. In the first example the icons are approximately the same height as the text; in the second they overpower the text—not something that is desirable in a rail diagram (where the roads are not the primary feature). Useddenim (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Perhaps this could be moved to userspace? --Zfish118 (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Superfluous to {{jct}}. Dough 48 72 03:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is Highway substantially easier to use than Jct, also can Jct be fixed work with Route Diagram Templates? Jonpatterns (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jonpatterns: You're asking two questions, so I'll try to briefly give you those two answers.
  1. As far as ease of use, jct is actually easier. To output the graphic + a proper text link with {{highway}}, an editor has to the use template and append the text link after it; with jct it handles both functions at the same time. When it comes to concurrent highways, one transclusion of jct will handle all of them. For the I-194/M-66 freeway in Battle Creek, Michigan, {{jct|state=MI|I|194|M|66}} will give you: I-194 / M-66. (Not that most rail diagrams will need it, but jct will support more concurrent numbers just by continuing to alternate the types and numbers as needed.) If I use {{highway|state=Interstate|route=194}}, it gives me , which links to a disambiguation page (oops!) because the template is assuming "Interstates" are a "state". Additionally I can't add a {{highway|state=Michigan|route=66}} because it only handles a vary limited selection of highway types, yet jct handles the US, Canada, and dozens of countries' highways.
  2. jct already works with route diagram templates, as noted above with {{WMATA Red Line}}, {{BART Red Line}}, {{Sugar House Streetcar}}, {{M-1 Rail route diagram}}, and many others. Imzadi 1979 → 09:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case a would support Delete as highway appears to be just duplicating work. If there are some unique feature in Highway prehaps they can be merged in to Jct. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A size parameter would be nice, but I don't think that it's likely to be included in {{jct}} as it's a locked template, and Imzadi1979 seems to be zealously engaged on a crusade to eliminate {{Highway}} rather than improve {{jct}}. Useddenim (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the size parameter was added to Jct would you still want to keep Highway? Jonpatterns (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of a "size" parameter, I've added {{{rdt}}} to the sandbox. Passing any non-empty value for it will set all shield sizes to x17px. The sandbox version should be deployed sometime early next month, though I can expedite it if need be. -happy 5214 10:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With a parameter that can force the smaller sizes in this template being added to {{jct}}, there is no need to keep this template. -happy5214 10:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Another fix needed for {{jct}} is a thin space between multiple icons (as highlighted by the example I-376 / US 22 / US 30 above: note how the two US shields but up against each other.) Useddenim (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are thin spaces relevant to this discussion? I don't see them anywhere else here. -happy5214 15:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The existing template (highway) has no facility for multiple markers, and existing uses do not manually insert a thin space, so this the outcome of this discussion should not rest on this latest request. Imzadi 1979 → 16:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, it does. There are spaces on both sides of the slash (/) when listing multiple routes, so the icons should also be slightly separated. (cf. MOS:ICON.) Useddenim (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I just double checked, and there does not seem to be anything in the text of that guideline requiring adjacent icons to have a space between them. Imzadi 1979 → 15:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        The point I was making is that there should be legibility and clarity. Should I go and add something so obvious to MOS:ICON? Useddenim (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, that wasn't what you typed above. If such a thing were added to the MOS, then {{jct}} would be updated, but considering that dozens of articles have gone through FAC without nary a word about this as an issue, it is doubtful that such a change is actually necessary. Imzadi 1979 → 19:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Well whoop-de-doo. Just because something has been done wrong in the past in no reason to not fix it now. Useddenim (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        And this isn't the the place to make changes to the MOS. Imzadi 1979 → 03:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you're bound and determined to delete {{Highway}} regardless, and you're just going to continue and browbeat everyone into acquiescing. Useddenim (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Imzadi. If you want us to make changes to {{jct}}, propose them at that template's talk page. If you want changes made to the MOS, propose them there. This discussion is about whether or not we should delete {{highway}}, and the lack of thin spaces in {{jct}} is not relevant to this discussion, especially considering that the template being discussed can't even handle multiple shields to begin with. If the issue is that important to you, I strongly encourage you to raise it at the appropriate forum(s). -happy5214 20:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not {{highway}} can or can't handle multiple shields is also irrelevant. Frankly, if you're insisting that I must use {{jct}} and are not going to let me use {{highway}}, then you have an obligation to provide the functionality that I need and want. Useddenim (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the maintainer of {{jct}}, I don't have the right to make controversial changes to the template without consensus, much less an obligation. You're trying to compel me to make a change that is not currently supported by consensus, in a discussion regarding the deletion of a template where such a change could not even be effected, under the guise that, because your template is on the chopping block, we must cater to your needs above those expressed by the community as a whole. Continuing to associate your desired changes to {{jct}} with this discussion is not going to get you anywhere. I would be more inclined to consider a request on that template's talk page, where the logically flawed connection between the request and this discussion would no longer be an issue. -happy 5214 01:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would argue that the fact that {{highway}} cannot handle multiple shields is relevant because that makes it not only redundant to {{jct}} but also harder to use. T C N7JM 01:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. {{jct}} does this job just fine. T C N7JM 01:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would an option to link the images in {{Jct}} be acceptable? The desired end results of these are very much the same, so any extra features like this should go into the more established system, rather than making a new one. It saves resources and avoids redundancy. —PC -XT + 04:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. And since the idea of a thin space between multiple icons seems to be too controversial, perhaps it could be implemented so that it is only displayed when the {{{rdt}}} parameter is invoked? Useddenim (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the arguments for keeping are unconvincing, and the same with the bad faith accusations. --Rs chen 7754 04:23, 6 August 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.