Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 22 February 24 >

February 23[edit]

Template:Jack & Jack[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 as a navbox that doesn't aid navigation. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jack & Jack (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A navigation template is for use between multiple articles. This template has only one article to navigate between. The Banner talk 21:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Navbox with nothing to nav. Sometimes it might be ok if we can be sure multiple entries are notable despite not presently having an article. That is not evident here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per The Banner's nomination rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2015 (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:Churches in Bristol[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 objection to deletion. No quorum, may be restored through WP:REFUND on request. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Churches in Bristol (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not useful because it only contains Anglican churches (and thus excludes the New Room which is arguably more notable than a lot of the entries in the template), only contains parish churches (and thus excludes the chapel of Foster's Almshouses, Bristol) and only contains churches older than a seemingly arbitrary cutoff point (and thus excludes Redland Chapel). Also many of its functions seem to have been subsumed into Template:Culture in Bristol, although arguably the list of churches there is unmanageably large and unstructured - certainly neither contains every entry in Category:Churches_in_Bristol, Category:Former_churches_in_Bristol and their subcategories. Also, I'm not sure how to substitute the former with the latter without some sort of script. --Quentin Smith 20:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: options that may also be considered: keep, and include non-Angligan churches, or keep and rename to {{Anglican churches in Bristol}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Quentin Smith: Admittedly, I know virtually nothing about churches in Bristol, but I cannot help but wonder if the best resolution to this TfD would be to restructure the existing idiosyncratic navbox to better provide a navigational aid among these closely related article subjects. I would start with deleting the double navbox title/header, and create one or more subheaders and/or subsections within the navbox itself to better organize the links, and add whatever article links you believe should be included but are presently omitted. What do you think? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding notice - I have notified WikiProject England of this discussion on their project talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2015 (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:Central Asian American[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 consensus to merge. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Central Asian American (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Middle Eastern American (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Central Asian American with Template:Middle Eastern American.
Fails WP:BURDEN, there is not racial or ancestral category presently recognized by the Office of Budget Management or the United States Census Bureau as "Central Asian American". According to this reliable source Afghan Americans are considered to be Middle Eastern Americans under the White race. According to this reliable source Uzbek American are considered Asian American. As such, there is no basis for this categorization in reliable sources that I have found. Therefore, it should be merged into one or several existing references based on what reliable sources state. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @RightCowLeftCoast: RCLC, I note that you have not yet notified the creators of these templates of the proposed merge. Before we get too deep into this discussion, can you do that, please? Template creators and major contributors often have good knowledge of the history, architecture, intended purposes and uses of the templates, and may contribute significantly to TfD/TfM discussions for the benefit of other discussion participants. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had place a notice on the talk page of the template in question, but I will go ahead and do as suggested above.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, sir! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Several times I posted the four ethnic groups of the Template:Central Asian American in the Template:Middle Eastern American, but they were deleted of there, because weren´t considered Middle Eastern American (except Afghans). So, I decided created the Template:Central Asian American to include these groups and make them more easily findable. In the Template:Middle Eastern American, they usually be deleted. This is the problem.--Isinbill (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Based on reliable sources at least one of them can be added to Template:Asian Americans. Some of them might actually fall under White Americans.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And added to both templates.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that without a reliable source to know the racial consideration that have the US Census Bureau about the Kazakhs and Tajiks, it will be difficult to include them in any particular group. If we include them in the template "Middle Eastern American" probably they will be deleted, as has happened several times, because the rejection of many people to consider them Middle Eastern (on one occasion, even someone said it in the Talk:Kazakh American page). So, we need a reliable source that indicates that these people are really "Middle Eastern Americans" according the United States Census Bureau and indicate the reference. Anyway, I included the Kazakh Americans in the template "European Americans", since a small part of the country belongs to Europe (anyway, most of the country itself is Asian, so the Kazakh Americans should also be included in any category that meets the Americans whose origins are in the Asian continent).--Isinbill (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However, we don't have any reliable sources saying that Kazakh or Tajiks are Asian Americans as defined by OBM or USCB. Just cause a nation is on the Asian continent that doesn't make those who immigrate from there, or whose ancestors come from there, Asian American. Example are Turkish Americans who are not Asian American. Without a verified source they don't belong in Asian American articles or templates.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, so if we remove this template, we can not include some of the groups that appear there in any other template, at least for now. Even I might consider that template as temporary, until we find reliable sources to help us know in which template of racial group we should include them according to the US Census Bureau.--Isinbill (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However, as a categorization that fails verification it is not one that meets WP:BURDEN and thus shouldn't exist, and those that belong in other template should be placed there (as has been done).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I could accept easily removing the template Central Asian Americans now without problems, if you will consider it opportune(although I would recommend to know the racial groups to which they belong before remove the category, to include these groups in any existing specific template like Asian or Middle East American, having the Central Asian American template temporaly, because of the contrary some of the groups that are in the template "Central Asian Americans" will not be incorporated into any other template and we only can find them in the categories because we do not know to which racial groups from Asian continent (ie, Asian, Middle Eastern) they belong).--Isinbill (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well technically "Middle Eastern American" fall under the white race categorization. Thus why there is a not of one ethnicity that was re-categorized as white in the Asian American template.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — Central Asia is a distinct geographic region. The peoples of the region collectively generally aren't considered a distinct ethnicity, which is why there isn't many sources using the exact term "Central Asian American". Instead there are are two broad ethno-liguistic groups grouped into Turkic peoples (Turkmen, Uzbek, Kazakh, & Kyrgyz) and Persians (Tajik & some Afghans). As noted, Afghanistan is a region that is variably considered part of Central Asia or as part of the Middle East—similar to how Turkey is sometimes considered part of Europe and sometimes part of the Middle East. Furthermore, of all corners of the globe, this is probably the one with the fewest immigrants in the US (per capita), but apparently they are the second largest group of visa lottery recipients after Africans ([1], [2]). In New York, there are enough immigrants from Central Asia to have a couple of media outlets ([3]). Here are sources that group Central Asians as a regional grouping:
  • [4], "Ethnic identities can be referenced in the aggregate e.g., Southeast Asians or disaggregated e.g., Cambodians...Notions of ethnic and national identity carry political, social and familial meanings too complex to analyze here...Central Asians: Afghani, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Georgians, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Mongolian, Tajik, Turkmen, Uzbek." (I don't agree that people from the Caucasus are Central Asians, though...Aremian, Azerbaijani, & Georgians)
  • [5] "U.S. immigration was opened to Eastern Europeans, Asians, Arabs, South Indians, Iranians, and Central Asians, creating a microcosm of the world."
  • A couple religious sites discuss Central Asians as a distinct group of immigrants: [6], [7]
Those are just sources that discuss "Central Asians" as immigrants to the US. Race and ethnic identity is hard to define discretely and Central Asia is an "in between" region between the groups usually considered "Asian" to the east/southeast, European (most Russian peoples) to the north, and "Middle Eastern" to the southwest. It may be a geographic region of similar people, but using that criteria is not very different from using countries, eg. Indian American including Tamils, Hindi, etc; French American including some Basque people; South African American including black Africans, Afrikaners (whites of Dutch descent and a long history in SA), and whites of relatively recent ancestry in SA. I think that the template should consider Central Asians as just the former Soviet countries (Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Tajik, & Turkmen), including red wikilinks for Kyrgyz Americans & Turkmen Americans. AHeneen (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the different footer templates, such as Template:Asian Americans, Template:European American, etc. are organized along racial and ethnicity lines and not linguistic lines. Such a grouping, would fall outside of that categorization scheme. Now if the template were renamed so it specifies that it is for specific linguistic groupings, a whole set of Ethnolinguistics footers could be created, and I might drop this.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am agreed with the proposal of AHeneen. That would allow a category for Central Asian groups from the Soviet Union, making all of them have a template, and that they are more easily find and can not only be found in the categories, while (the template) does not reject the ethnics (Europeans, Asians, Middle Eastern, et.) accepted by the US census bureau of official way or invent other (Central Asian American). The template name could be something like "American groups of former-Soviet Central Asian origin" (that exclude the Mongols).--Isinbill (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the above be a request move than, and also would it meet verification requirements? As Central Asian American, isn't really a recognized racial categorization of all those listed at the beginning of this discussion. Another alternative is to create a template, or rename this Template:Emmigrants to the United States from former Soviet Republics, and add all the other former Soviet Americans (one example of its usage).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know exactly what's wrong in name the template something like "American groups of former-Soviet Central Asian origin". The term "Central Asian" not is recognized as a racial categorization by US census bureau, but they are the inhabitants of Central Asia, a place recognized by him. It would be a template that refers to a group of American people whose origins are in a particular region that belonged to the Soviet Union, as with the Template:North Africans in the United States.--Isinbill (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - We should not limit template names and categories bases on American government definitions but rather on real world applications and definitions. Of course there are Americas from Central Asia as its a real place....as is the Middle East (they are not the same place) Not sure why we would excluded anyone. In the real world the term is used in all kinds of situations even food... Robert Ji-Song Ku; Martin F. Manalansan; Anita Mannur (2013). Eating Asian America: A Food Studies Reader. NYU Press. p. 254. ISBN 978-1-4798-1203-5.. This classification of people based solely on an American Government POV has got to stop. -- Moxy (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2015 (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:Cheape1985[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 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cheape1985 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With this edit, now an orphaned template for a single particular book citation. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unused; we don't need a template for one reference like this —PC-XT+ 12:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2015 (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:Said-Vassallo-Acknowledgement[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 subst and delete Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Said-Vassallo-Acknowledgement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template used on one old talk page to inform people that this was based from one particular user from whom, based on this, we are better off not having met. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2015 (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:Ref Great Aircraft[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 as unused Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ref Great Aircraft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned unused template that only takes a single book's citation and makes it more complicated in my opinion. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - We recently deleted a template that was a passage of text used in two articles. Likewise, we do not create templates for individual references. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to review Category:Specific-source templates. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just learned something new today. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2015 (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:Ref Stockholm[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 subst and delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ref Stockholm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

In line with the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_24#Template:Geographic_reference, I think this template should be deleted with its references being either hardcoded as text or if someone wants, as individual separate templates. While helpful to have these references near each other, that information could be done with a single talk page listing the individual markups for each one. Knowing that these particular sources can be found by "Ref Stockholm" first and kept that way creates a block of templates that may have its unique syntax and structure that operate outside of the rest of our citations. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is currently used on seven pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination rationale and my comment in Ref Great Aircraft TfD above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2015 (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:Ref Ethiopia[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 subst and convert to a list of sources in wikiproject space Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ref Ethiopia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

In line with the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_24#Template:Geographic_reference, I think this template should be deleted with its references being either hardcoded as text or if someone wants, as individual separate templates. While helpful to have near each other, knowing that these particular sources can be found by "Ref Ethopia" first and kept that way creates a bizarre block of templates that may have its unique syntax and structure. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is currently used on fifty eight pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This was an experiment, based on a suggestion by @LA:, to improve monitoring of sources. ISBNs often get mangled & contributors to Wikipedia have been known to either invent sources or content in known sources that are not familiar or easily accessible. Having a central list of sources judged reliable not only helps in part with this problem, it also aids another goal of Wikipedia: to enable its users to extend research beyond its articles. I admit that this experiment failed to gain much traction, but if the consensus is to delete this template I suggest it instead be marked as inactive & archived as a failed experiment, since it's likely that someone will come up with the same idea again & will learn something from this experiment. -- llywrch (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been done before. The geographic references template used to have calls ("1", "2", etc) to each separate source. It had eleven sources in total. The problems became that changes to one or another source or another piece and it becomes an unwieldy complex mess. If you end up with 30 sources, that's an nightmarish template and will completely scare of any new users. Why not create a category (like Category:Medieval studies source templates at Category:Specific-source templates) and then templates for each individual source (like Template:Cite AClon). It keeps the material separate and is something that's closer to manageable as each one could be protected and separately watched. Or better yet, have the Wikiproject manage these as part of its template space. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a very practical problem with this concept: what if another editor wants to add another reference that is relevant to one article, but not all of the articles where this template is transcluded? How does he or she put the added reference in alpha order? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm somewhat puzzled by the suggestion that archiving it is preferable to simple deletion, as it does not seem to fit the general template standards regardless. The information in the template (the value of it, as you're arguing), might be useful for what I might suggest: a WP:WikiProject Ethiopia/Sources page (based on WP:VG/RS, especially WP:VG/RS#List or such) where that information (and more!) can be gathered. --Izno (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps subst and move to project subpage, then turn into a list of sources? —PC-XT+ 13:13, 25 February 2015 (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:Personal correspondence with son Charles Styblo, September 2012[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 as unused and unneeded Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Personal correspondence with son Charles Styblo, September 2012 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is used to replace the text within a single reference on a single page. While it makes the markup on that page a lot cleaner, it will be more difficult to (a) watch this template page for vandalism and (b) to find this wording if other editors want to edit it. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - We do not create template for quoted passages of text or individual references. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete as single-use template —PC-XT+ 13:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after replacement. Frietjes (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Orphaned now after this edit. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2015 (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/2015_February_23&oldid=1138533675"