Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 10 February 12 >

February 11[edit]

Template:Hum Award Best Actor[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 the footer template, but no consensus on the rest. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hum Award Best Actor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hum Award Best Supporting Actor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hum Award Best Actress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hum Award Best Supporting Actress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hum Award Best Soap Actor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hum Award Best Soap Actress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hum Award Best Comic Actor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hum Award Best Comic Sitcom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hum Award Best Soap Series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hum Award Best Host (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hum Award Best Television Sensation Male (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hum Award Best Television Sensation Female (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hum Award Best Onscreen Couple (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:HumAwardBestOriginalSoundtrack footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:HumAwardBestOrginalSoundtrack 2012-2020 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hum Award Best Original Soundtrack (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hum Award Best Solo Artist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hum Award Best Music Video (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hum Award Best Model Male (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hum Award Best Model Female (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hum Award Best Director Drama Serial (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hum Award Best Drama Serial (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hum Award Best Drama Series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hum Award Best Designer Menswear (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hum Award Best Designer Womenswear (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

template that is awarded just once (red link) or twice (not mentioned at all). Fails WP:NENAN The Banner talk 00:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WP:NENAN The Banner talk I think you have made a mistake, it is clear from the Template information that Award is just awarded once, Because Hum Award just held it first ceremony in 2013 for the achievements of 2012. I don't think that there is any other information left which should be provided, if i have to, then help me in doing so, because all the information related to this templated (necessary) has already provided. Fushaan 16:05 4 February 2014, UTC. —Preceding undated comment added 08:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then please read WP:NENAN. With just one winner there is no need for a navigation-template. And please, don't removed the TfD-template before this discussion is decided on. The Banner talk 11:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:44, 11 February 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:IUCN Map[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 no conensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IUCN Map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

IUCN entries are already extensively used in the articles already (often as a reference), and maps are generally already incorporated. There is no need to specifically link to the maps as they do not add so much beyond the maps already in the article, and having this template only invites that more. We are not writing a linkfarm here. For those special cases where a link is needed, the link itself, without template, can be added to the external links section. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created this template to be able to add a mapping link to bird species articles, which is my area of editing interest. The reason I thought that this was needed was that I have found that many (even most...) articles I have looked at are lacking a range map, or a good range map. A range map is basic and necessary piece of information when attempting to identify and differentiate species, so I think an easy link to a good range map does add something worthwhile to the article. While most (or all) bird species articles have an existing IUCN link, it is for the Conservation Status only. The IUCN has a new interactive map service that provides a free, public, consistent, stakeholder-edited range map for pretty much every recognized bird species. They host the map service on a separate domain from their main page and even have a separate splash page for it that introduces it as a tool for species exploration, and not just for conservation information. So I think that it warrants a direct link to map, which is general species information, as opposed to the standard IUCN link, which is now conservation-specific. While I agree that Wikipedia is not intended to be a "linkfarm", I think that a good set of external links can round out an article without having to reproduce content. (Actually, I have asked IUCN and BirdLife (the underlying data owners) for the data in order to produce more range maps to place in Wikimedia, but have not yet received permission other than on a species-by-species basis.) Finally, I'm not sure that I understand why in special cases a link would be acceptable but a templated link would not be... is it just because, as stated, the existence of a template itself would seem to encourage "linkfarms"? Stongey (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rangemaps can be crated as files, as has been done for many. That is more important than linking to it (it can be based on external info, it does not have to be a copy or reproduction of the data on one site) and most articles already link to it through linking to the species, a common reference in the infobox. Where I looked at the data linked on IUCN, the interactive map was there.
Templates like this 'suggest' that the link is generally endorsed, not that it should be a case-by-case decision. Some of the articles you added the template to had both a map and a link yo IUCN, that is the use this template 'invites'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that range maps can be created as files, but, with over 10,000 species, the task is daunting and likely to never be completed without a concerted effort by a number of editors. And maybe articles that already have a range map don't need extra range information in the form of an external link, but the number of articles with no range or range map information at all still leaves me feeling that this is useful.
I don't feel that the existence of a template suggests any endorsement at all. For editors, it is a convenience and makes updating easy and formatting consistent. For readers, they don't know that a link is template-based or not, so it doesn't suggest anything. Stongey (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So - that is not a criterion. We do not have WP:DEADLINEs, and moreover, quite some of the species where these templates were added already had maps, if there is NO map, then an addition could be considered, but then that does not need a separate template, and I still believe that the 'species' page on IUCN is more suitable (and that one on itself links through to the map) - and that link has already been used in many of the pages as well, prominently referenced from the infobox, on all the pages this template was on.
Believe me, the argument is used throughout ('we have {{youtube}}, so why is my addition of a youtube link deemed wrong?'). Addition of external links should be a thoughtful process, it should add to the page where it is added, having the concenience of 'slapping' a template in the external links sections is inviting that more.
I do note, that many of the pages already contain unnecessary external links, bordering on linkfarming, and this template is only adding to that on the pages where you added these links. Most of those do not ADD anything that is not already in the articles, most of those links fail our inclusion standards for external links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm going to sum up my argument and leave it at that:
  • The articles in which I initially included this template are not the best examples of where it would be most useful, since they already had some range map information. Perhaps the template should not be used in such articles. Guidance in that respect can be added to the documentation of the template. But there are a large number of other articles where this type of external information would be very useful due to a lack of a range map.
  • The current IUCN reference in the Taxobox section is, I believe, not sufficient to inform the reader since it is a reference for conservation information and not range information. There is nothing to tell the user that range map information exists if you click there, then click again somewhere else. A more direct link adds access to information to the article until it can be replaced with Wiki content.
  • The existence of a template doesn't result in 'linkfarming'. Bad editing choices result in 'linkfarming'. I may be somewhat guilty through inexperience of the latter on these initial articles, but it doesn't make the template itself a bad idea.
  • Thanks for the discussion. It was interesting and informative even though we disagree.
Stongey (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)~[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The usage of a template itself shouldn't promote linkfarming, and should linkfarming occur it would be a editorial problem that doesn't necessarily reflect on the usefulness or quality of the template itself. Up-to-date external links and references can be employed through the usage of the template, without resorting to bulk editing and/or third-party applications to correct articles with dead links. With the point above, it seems it would be beneficial to employ the template to be able to link safely to a source that is still there. This can then--editorially speaking, I think--be used while some project creates rangemaps for those articles. Maybe then, once there are no articles to which need a link to IUCN, the template could be dissolved - which wouldn't be much of a rush due to WP:DEADLINE. In essence, why delete something that can result in a higher level of alive links, while helping users find more resources until a better, more free alternative is available on Wikipedia itself? Nitrolinken (talk) 12:52, 13 February 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:Infobox Oslo Metro station[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 with {{infobox station}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Oslo Metro station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to standard {{Infobox station}}. Most parameters have the same name or they can be replaced. Sw2nd (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Infobox Oslo Metro station/convert for a preliminary workup on how parameters would be expanded and the substitution made. Sw2nd (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is the alternative of wrapping the Infobox station template with the recurring default details (agency/authority, owner, operator, country, even zone) as to make the Infobox parameters less overwhelming, so to speak? Nitrolinken (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to use all of the parameters. The point is that the existing parameters are covered and additional ones are available. It would not be a "wrapper" and so there would be no "recurring defaults", since the standard infobox would replace the custom version. That is what Wikipedia:Substitution does. Sw2nd (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I think we've had a minor misunderstanding: I'm thinking about how a lot of the parameters have the exact same value across all stations, and how it then could be easier for maintenance to use the current template as a wrapper for {{Infobox station}} -- but I do not know if this is recommended practice per WikiPedia policy. Should all those common values be duplicated among a set of approximately 110 stations? Nitrolinken (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I interpreted everything you said backwards. Sw2nd (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete or convert to use {{Infobox station}}, depending on the needs of the template's users and the WikiProject.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert, after exchange with Sw2nd above. I believe for the group of articles the current usage hits, and the future use of it, that converting Infobox Oslo Metro station to use Infobox station itself. That way, I see it as being easier to manage the values spread across the articles, as they all share properties like type, accessability (-1), operator, transit authority, country, zone and perhaps a few more I cannot think of right now. I myself will be glad to further improve and maintain the preliminary workup Sw2nd created, which is a great start for me to tinker with. I created a half-done example over at my sandbox. Nitrolinken (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not very experienced with the many different policies yet; could you please expand on why you vouch for delete over convert? Nitrolinken (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • "replace" = "convert". Then it won't be needed anymore, so "delete". Don't over think this! Sw2nd (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aha, I was referring to convert in the context of changing the Infobox Oslo Metro station to use Infobox station itself. Nitrolinken (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:33, 18 February 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:Infobox United States District Court case[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 February 23 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:32, 23 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_11&oldid=1078575702"