Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 2 March 4 >

March 3

[edit]

Template:S-par/ie/oi

[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 keep. The vast majority are in agreement that this TfD identified a legitimate problem and the problem was subsequently fixed. ~ RobTalk 22:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale Only elections in the Republic of Ireland, Malta, to the Australian Senate and to the Northern Ireland Assembly use the STV variant of Proportional representation. The template should not be used for elections that take place using the Single transferable vote system with multi-seat constituencies. It is used in this way for elections to the Oireachtas (the parliament of Ireland). It is illogical for multi-seat constituencies to use the box as there is no such thing as a named person being the predecessor or the successor. Instead, there are potentially multiple predecessors and multiple successors. The Dáil does not recognise a person as being the first / second / third / fourth / fifth member of the constituency. All TDs have equal standing. The Prime Minister of Malta, Joseph Muscat, does not use the box. The First Minister of Northern Ireland, Arlene Foster, does not use the box. The President of the Australian Senate, Stephen Parry, does not use the box.

The situation gets even more ludicrous in the case of those TDs who switch party allegiances. The Progressive Democrats furnished us with many examples of political turncoats in their early years. Perhaps the most agile was Martin Cullen. He is supplied with three succession boxes corresponding to his three terms as a Teachta Dála in the Waterford (Dáil Éireann constituency). To anybody unfamiliar with the nuances of Irish elections, the presentation is baffling and the conclusions contradictory:

  • “Progressive Democrats Teachta Dála for Waterford 1987–1989”. In this seat he was “Preceded by” Edward Collins, (Fine Gael) and “Succeeded by” Brian O'Shea, (Labour Party). How can a PD TD be preceded by anyone other than another PD TD? How can a PD TD be succeeded by anyone other than another PD TD?
  • “Progressive Democrats Teachta Dála for Waterford 1992–1994”. In this seat he was “Preceded by” Jackie Fahey (Fianna Fáil) and “Succeeded by” – hilariously – Himself as Fianna Fáil TD. ).
  • “Fianna Fáil Teachta Dála for Waterford 1994–2010”. In this seat he was “Preceded by” Himself as Progressive Democrats TD and “ Succeeded by” Paudie Coffey, (Fine Gael). How can a PD TD be succeeded by anyone other than another PD TD?

The template is only useful for single seat constituencies. For example, the box for David Cameron lists : “Member of Parliament for Witney 2001–present” where he was “Preceded by” Shaun Woodward and “Succeeded by” Incumbent. No mention is made of his party. Laurel Lodged . Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.(Changed on 15 March, see below). I'd been wondering about this myself. The only possible way it could justifiably be used in Irish Dáil elections is in a by-elections, when a vacancy is effectively "single-seat". But although technically applicable in such cases, it defies common sense to use it there. Similarly - constituencies change. Who "succeeded" who when Dublin Bay North returned it's first five TDs following the abolition of Dublin North East and Dublin North Central (both three seats). What happens if more than one TD changes at an election? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postpone. There needs to be some way of detailing, in a TD's infobox, the seat/s they represented. Many TD's pages (going right back to the foundation of the state) are marred by this infobox not being added and so it not being obvious which seat they represented and when. One alternative would be to take the approach adopted with 19th C UK MPs in multi-member seats - Preceded by <All the MPs> - MP for such and such a seat with <Other MPs> - Followed by <All the MPs>. That just about works with two-member seats in the 19th C UK (and even then it is hazy on this site). It seems impossible with five-member seats (and, pre-Emergency, sometimes eight- and nine-member seats. The existing infobox should not be deleted without an alternative being available.
As for the point above from Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! about who succeeded who in Dublin Bay North; just as with UK constituencies, it should read: "New constituency - <Party> TD for Dubin Bay North, 2016-". No predecessors. Marplesmustgo (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There needs to be some way of detailing, in a TD's infobox, the seat/s they represented." Yes - but doesn't the officeholder infobox do that perfectly well (when used)? This discussion is about the succession box, which is different. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The TD's infobox is the place to store the seat/s they represented. This template is not that place. Why should Ireland, alone of all the countries that use STV, be the exception? How can a listing of 5 TDs be deemed to be a predecessor? There can only be 1 immediate predecessor. It is illogical to present it in a way that shows multiple immediate predecessors. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why it is necessary to offer an alternative. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should offer an alternative then mere deletion. Also it is used (or rather s-par|ni/ass) in Arelene Foster's article. Spleodrach (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It is absolute nonsense to say the succession of these election is anything other than one collection of people to another collection. I find this particularly bad where this encyclopedia uses sectarianism to define succession in NI. Question why do we not take a holistic approach and delete ni/ass on the same basis? 82.18.177.13 (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. Impossible to identify a single predecessor/successor in multi-member constituencies, --NSH002 (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC) changed to Keep. I am persuaded by BHG's argument below. --NSH002 (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    delete Serves no useful function. Predecessors are all right with hereditaments as it is a one to one linear chain of succession but as constituencies change all the time (not just in name) it is too clunky as deployed on the wiki now. Wikimucker (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed stance to OPPOSE albeit with usage in future as detailed by BHG belowWikimucker (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would appear that @BrownHairedGirl: is attempting to subvert, or at the very least to render moot this discussion by doing a solo run of a load of the boxes for TDs. She is implementing the suggestion made by @Marplesmustgo: above even though it has attracted virtually no support. This is deplorable and she should know better. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong procedural and substantive oppose. This nomination addresses a genuine problem, but it does so in the wrong forum, and proposes an action which cannot resolve the problem identified.
The problem is real: the misuse of succession boxes to pretend that there is an office "Partyname TD for Foo", and to pretend that one TD out of a group succeeded one particular individual out of a set of predecessors. The nature of Irish STV elections is that TDs are elected as individuals, in contrast to list systems where they are elected to a party slot. Those succession boxes which try to claim that there is a defined slot for a party are simply wrong.
However, using TFD to address this is procedurally wrong, because it cannot resolve the problem identified. If this template is deleted, only the header is removed; the succession boxes remain, and cannot be deleted without the consensus of a discussion which actually makes that proposal in the proper forum, i.e. WP:RFC. In short, this TFD puts the cart before the horse -- removing the label while leaving the claimed fault in place.
The proposal is also substantively wrong, because it is based on the nominator's false assertion that the template is only useful for single seat constituencies. In fact, the succession box system has been designed for nearly a decade to work in multi-seat constituencies, and has been long used in the many multi-seat constituencies which existed in the United Kingdom until 1950 (2-seaters were the norm until 1832), and it can easily be used For Dail Eireann. See for example City of London, where there were 4 seats until 1885; and Weymouth & Melcombe Regis, where there were 4 seats until 1832. Look for example at MPs such as Christopher Idle and Sir John Murray, 8th Baronet.
So there is a simple solution: to use succession boxes as designed, to present TDs in the context of all their contemporaries in that seat. To illustrate how this works with the Dail, I have implemented this style of succession box on:
  1. A TD re-elected in 2016: Finian McGrath
  2. A TD defeated in 2016 John Perry
  3. A former TD returned in 2016: Seán Haughey
  4. A few new TDs: Kate O'Connell, Jim O'Callaghan
  5. Some TDs for Dublin South-East: Kevin Humphreys, Lucinda Creighton, Chris Andrews, John Gormley, Michael McDowell, Frances Fitzgerald
  6. All TDs for Dublin Mid–West: John Curran, Mary Harney, Paul Gogarty, Joanna Tuffy, Frances Fitzgerald, Robert Dowds, Derek Keating, Eoin Ó Broin, John Curran, Gino Kenny.
I know that's a big sample, but I wanted to test a variety of cases. And AFAICS, it works well, and avoids the inaccuracies identified by the nominator.
This is not really a proper place to debate whether to have TD succession boxes, or how to present them. But it does illustrate that the current problem does not require deletion of {{S-par/ie/oi}} ... and that the header template can actually be part of a good solution.
I am aware that there would be work involved in creating the new style of succession box, but it's not too onerous. I have created several thousand such boxes for UK MPs, but there have been only about 1300 TDs since 1919. So it's not a daunting task. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great being an Admin around here, if a User edits articles to give an example of what they are talking about they get swarmed by nutters indiscriminately quoting WP:*.* at them on talk pages all the time.
Anyway I highly commend User:BrownHairedGirl for the given examples of how to improve the antecede/succeed trail that they edited into some Dublin TD profiles and particularly like the Seán Haughey workup if one wants to look at only the one example. Seán was reelected to a new constituency that differed from the one that rejected him 5 years earlier...and yet it was not new. I think the layout is very good and captures the antecede/succeed meme perfectly. Naturally the data is perfect.
I remain uncertain as to how this can be templated as such. But I do very much like the presentation of the information itself.  :: Moved stance on template to neutral above. Wikimucker (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikimucker: the examples which I created all use the standard succession box templates: {{s-bef}}, {{s-ttl}}, {{s-aft}}. In fact, these are the same templates as were used before; it's just that the earlier uses were (as we all seem to agree) a misuse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it to others to comment from their point of view BrownHairedGirl I do like your presentation of the data like I said and moved stance to neutral on delete is all. Wikimucker (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Martin Cullen with bad succession boxes
  2. Martin Cullen with improved succession boxes
I have self-reverted[1] my changes, so that while this discussion is underway, the nom's link to Martin Cullen appears as the nom intended. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the 'Good' Martin Cullen Example I wonder if the boxes should really be formatted as (EG) Preceeded By [Members_of_the_24th_Dáil|24th Dáil] Succeeded By [Members_of_the_26th_Dáil|26th Dáil] Teachta Dála for Waterford
1987–1989 25th Dáil rather than Preceeded By (List) Member For Waterford 1987- Succeeded By (List) as in your 'Good' Example BHG it clarifies matters a tad better I feel. Wikimucker (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikimucker: I see where you are coming from, but your proposal would amount to a redesign of the succession box templates (creating a specialist fork), rather than using the existing templates. May I suggest that you take a little time to study how the succession box suite of templates works, and then to experiment in your sandbox?
Even if the templates were modified, I see several problems with what you propose, e.g.
  1. Using "nth Dáil" as a header will be meaningless to most readers. I'm an obsessive political anorak with an unhealthily-detailed knowledge of Irish elections, but to correlate the Dáil number with a year even I have to count backwards from the current Dáil.
  2. The current left and right columns do not list the TDs in a particular Dáil. They list the TD's immediate predecessors, who may be in the same Dáil if the TD was elected at a by-election. Similarly, if there was a by-election in that constituency in the previous Dáil, then the TD's immediate predecessors will not be the same as the list of TDs elected at the start of the previous Dáil.
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Grand. Lets freeze best practice at last known Good Martin Cullen Your layouts to date BHG were broadly accepted so I doubt anyone changed their mind since. I have modified my stance above. Wikimucker (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to know which vista is the more appaling:

  1. The subversion of the process by changing the nature of the template was still in discussion under the spurious guise of "examples"
  2. The work in involved in updating hundreds of politicians templates in order to give effect to BHD's decision
  3. The sheer ugliness of the solution

None of this matters of course. An Admin has spoken, causa finita est. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pity. When I posted on LL's talk page to seek a response, I hoped that there might be some attempt at an intelligent reply. Instead, we get a litany of petulant silliness:
  1. The TfD process was in no way subverted. The template was neither added to any article no removed from it, nor were any of its parameters changed. The articles whose succession boxes have been updated have all been transparently listed here, so if there had been a consensus to revert to the style LL deplores, it could be done easily. Similarly, if there is a consensus to remove the succession boxes, the removal of the modified ones will be no different: exactly the same regex parameters would work.
  2. This is not "BHG's decision"; whatever decision is made will be a consensus decision. Having identified a problem, work was going to be involved one way or another.
  3. If LL finds the solution "ugly", it's a pity that they didn't take the time to explain why and how they view it that way. The bare adjective doesn't identify any problems.
The fact that I am an admin is irrelevant to this discussion. Everything I have done here could have been done by any editor, and my comments will be weighed the same as those of any other editor. It is sad that once again, LL has chosen to avoid any comment on the substance of the issues, and instead launch a series of unfounded personal attacks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 19 March 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:MaryJanice Davidson

[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 procedural keep. The AfD is still awaiting a close, and this TfD clearly depends on its result. Feel free to open another TfD once the AfD closes. ~ RobTalk 01:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox only serves to link articles which fail WP:BOOK and are all currently at Afd here. Since none of these books merit separate articles, a list on the author's page will suffice. —swpbT 19:47, 3 March 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:EUnum

[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 no consensus, though this may be attributed to the TFD notice being wrapped in <noinclude> tags. Because of this, there is NPASR, especially if policy-based reasons at WP:TG are included. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem particularly useful as the number of EU member states doesn't increase at the rate that it would be unreasonable to manually update the specific number on articles. There could potentially be a issues with the template rendering on some browsers or lower-end computers. Prisencolin (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:22, 3 March 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:TempName2016

[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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted the template to the pages in which it was transcluded, before realising the articles already had this information already, rendering this template unused.  AxG / ✉ / 10 years of editing 14:03, 3 March 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:USA2016REP

[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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template is only used in one article (Results of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016) and is not likely to be used anywhere else. So this template is not needed as it can simply be replaced with a table in the article. Mlpearc (open channel) 06:57, 3 March 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:Egyptian Gods Genealogy

[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. If there should be a tree for the Ennead (which I cannot say - I'm no Egyptologist despite my affinity with cats), it might make more sense to include it only once in the Ennead article. Izkala (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparently unclear whether a single definite genealogy of Egyptian gods exists, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of the Egyptian gods. I declined speedy deletion, but it is probably worth thinking about whether this unsourced genealogy template should be used at all. —Kusma (t·c) 06:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I tagged the template for speedy deletion, but I can think of one circumstance in which it might not need to be. Large genealogies like this one inherently require synthesis, because Egyptian sources describe single relationships (parents, children, siblings, spouses) but not a coherent family tree. The only exception, or at least the only significant one, is the Ennead. If we want to include a genealogy in the articles on the gods who are members of the Ennead, this template might be reworked for that purpose and moved to a title like "Genealogy of the Ennead". If not, the template should simply be deleted. A. Parrot (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest redirect to List of Egyptian deities. Goustien (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Goustien: What do you suggest to do with the transclusions? —Kusma (t·c) 21:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A family tree is just chart that summarizes family relationships. Many charts on Wikipedia summarize or show information from multiple sources (such as this one on Christianity by country). There is no Wikipedia policy against combining any material from multiple sources. That would be an unworkable policy. WP:Synth merely says not to combine material in a way that implies a conclusion that is not stated by any of the sources. Of course this implies that there are sources for the chart. It does seem to need some citations. tahc chat 02:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is no consistent genealogy for the Egyptian gods. The Greek pantheon, which does have a Wikipedia chart like this one, has a somewhat consistent genealogy thanks to the influence of the Theogony, which has no Egyptian equivalent. Countless relationships between the gods are mentioned in various Egyptian sources, but they are overlapping and contradictory, and they always depend on the context. In Ptolemaic times, for instance, practically every temple to a male deity included a female consort and a male child. The consort was usually Isis or Hathor, and the child was usually Horus the Child or a form of him, but the father varied depending on the location. Various texts give different versions of Anubis's parentage, and if you stick them all together, he has three fathers and three or four mothers. Constructing a single family tree from multiple sources rips the relationships out of their context and makes them meaningless. A chart containing all those relationships would be unreadable, so there's inherent synthesis in choosing which to include and which to leave out. The only extended family tree that appears consistently in multiple sources is that of the Ennead. A. Parrot (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the AfD outcome. That discussion was conducted by individuals much more aware of the actual content of this template than us TfDers, and they decided the family tree was so indeterminate that it couldn't even be explained in an entire article. How can we possibly hope to convey in a single image what couldn't be conveyed using an entire article? ~ RobTalk 01:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete If an article is a problem, an unsourced diagram is more so. The AFD outcome should be reflected here. I also note that there is another nav tempalte for the gods which avoids these issues. Mangoe (talk) 15:19, 8 April 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:Non-DCAU DC TV animation

[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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant template. Template:DC Comics animated TV series covers all animated TV series based upon DC Comics, while this template lists those not part of the DC animated universe. Besides being unnecessary, it's reverse logic to have a template based upon something to which it doesn't belong. Soetermans. T / C 17:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated above based on "non-something." There are two universes that I am aware of (DCAU and DC Nation) which under the logic of this existing template means creating five templates total: two for shows within each of two universes, two covering the exact opposite, and one for shows that cover "no-universe" such as shows from the 1970s (Super Friends and The New Adventures of Batman, etc.) — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 01:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a moderator or someone in charge on the site or whatever, I am also not the person who made that template, but I agree it is pretty redundant. However, could some kind of denotation be put in the Template:DC Comics animated TV series to differentiate between such things so that other editors dont feel the need to put something like this again or revert the edit or whatever? It is just a thought.

76.174.79.74 (talk) 22:21, 9 March 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_March_3&oldid=1142562434"