Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 November 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

November 30[edit]

Template:Orphan[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. I will echo Galobtter's prudent advice esp. about the choice of venue. (non-admin closure) WBGconverse 11:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I recommend to deprecate this template and substitute it with the category it generates, Category:Orphaned articles, or replace the template's contents with nothing but the category.

As far as maintenance templates go, this is not a very useful one. Being orphaned (that is, having no or few incoming links from other articles) is not actually much of a problem. Most articles are primarily discovered by readers through search engines or links from elsewhere on the Internet, rather than through internal links. Also, most articles develop incoming links organically. The ones that do not are often about relatively obscure topics to begin with, and may not have much in the way of articles to link from - perhaps a list or two. Creating these incoming links, while certainly worth the while, doesn't really merit an unsightly template at the top of the article.

I recognize the template is also used for tracking purposes by WP:DO, so in order to not interfere with their work it's probably best to replace the template with its category rather than to just delete it. Sandstein 21:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support This template causes ugliness for our readers and editors. It makes it look as if there is a problem, where it is really only a minor improvement that is required. I agree that a category (perhaps hidden) will do the job. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Graeme Bartlett. Substitution with a hidden category is a sensible solution.--Darwinek (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – the template is already invisible about 2 months after it has been placed, so it does then already what's proposed. During the period when it's visible, it's a useful hint for editors to create incoming links. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
    • It's not invisible if it's in a multiple issues template where it stays forever unless it is manually removed, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Note An earlier discussion had decided to move this template to the talk page, but it failed to be implemented. If this RFC is actioned, then this deprecation would not be needed. Note also there was a previous TFD: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_14#Template:Orphan that resulted in "keep". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Michael Bednarek, since it's useful when it's visible, and still useful (among tracking/cleanup editors rather than the one[s] working on the page when it's new) even after it's no longer displayed.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  10:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support it is not invisible if it is in a multiple issues template where it stays forever until it is manually removed. It is not a big enough issue to need a template and having the category is enough for editors to carry on their deorphaning progress which is very active at the moment and ongoing, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Michael Bednarek and SMcCandlish. Additionally, it is a useful visual reminder that the article needs looking after - many orphans exist that have no other maintenance tags, yet upon investigation turn out to be mergeable, duplicates, or otherwise not needed. Without that visual reminder, editors might not notice the issue and check on that. ♠PMC(talk) 23:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Oh, and having the template means someone adding the tag won't have to manually categorize by month - AnomieBOT does that for us by adding the date parameter, but it wouldn't for a naked category. So if this is deleted, that's an extra inconvenience for the people using this for maintenance, simply in favor of aesthetics. ♠PMC(talk) 01:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per Michael Bednarek and previous discussions. Current visibility seems appropriate to me. Hide it after a couple months if there is nothing else going on. If there are other issues, it doesn't make things significantly uglier to display all the issues, big and small. If there is a consensus here that "ugliness" is a significant issue that needs to be addressed, deleting the template is not the best solution, we can hide it sooner and in more places. Those of us in WP:DEORPHAN already have a flag set in our accounts that makes these always visible. If the template is removed, it will disrupt WP:DEORPHAN workflow. There's no compelling reason for burdening the project with reengineering that. ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It definitely shouldn't be substed to a category. No need to make 130000 unnecessary edits that also break the workflows of tagging and automatic dating of tags when the template can simply be updated to be invisible (even in multiple issues) and only function to add the category. Actually, WP:TFD doesn't seem to be the best place to hold this discussion, since the most sensible way of doing this would not involve any real "deletion"; a proposal on village pump about making the tag invisible would seem the appropriate place for discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
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:Prime time animated television series[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. Before deletion the entries that aren't in List of American prime time animated television series should be added there. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

While the topic has clear rules for inclusion, the union of those rules (firstly, an animated series; secondly, on network television; thirdly, in prime time) doesn't seem to comprise a subject definitive enough to justify a navbox. Of the criteria at WP:NAVBOX, that's the first criterion. This does not meet the third and fifth either, in that these articles generally do not refer to each other and would be unlikely to be included in each's see also section. A list already exists at List of prime time animated television series, and I think the list is sufficient without the navbox. Bsherr (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - this is just an extension of something bad happening with TV related show navboxes. Agree with nom's point about it failing WP:NAVBOX criterion. --Gonnym (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, once it is confirmed that all content in the navbox has been megred to List of American prime time animated television series (I just moved the latter article, as its WP:SCOPE was only American prime time animated TV series). As it is, the template is misnamed, just as the article was, as its scope is only U.S. animated TV series. But I agree that the navbox is redundant to the list article. --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
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:R&B/Hip-Hop top 10 singles[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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Unused. Content has been redirected. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
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:Geotimebox[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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Not used on any articles. Only transclusions are on talk pages. Template was created 12 years ago and has almost no updates in last decade. I'm guessing it has been replaced by a different template? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
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:Hampden County politicians[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 December 8. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

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:Brexit note[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 December 8. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox runestone[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 December 8. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox natural region of Germany[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 December 8. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

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:H. P. Lovecraft[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 Merge Works into Lovecraft and Keep Mythos. (non-admin closure) WBGconverse 11:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Works of H. P. Lovecraft with Template:H. P. Lovecraft.
Can easily be dealt with by a single template, per this version by Randy Kryn, although a bit of re-structuring could be useful (grouping all Cthulu Mythos, Dream Cycle, etc). No need for multiple navboxes in this case. --woodensuperman 15:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, just spotted that {{Cthulhu Mythos}} exists too! This duplicates links in one or other of these navboxes for the most part too. We can certainly get this down from three to two navboxes, if not just the one. --woodensuperman 15:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge the two Lovecraft ones and partial "copy-merge" the works one to the mythos one as needed. The mythos one can stay separate, since the topic is broader than Lovecraft and includes works of Derleth and many other authors, plus games, films, etc., etc. It's the same as the difference between "works of J. R. R. Tolkien" and "Middle-earth", or "works of George Lucas" and "Star Wars". Don't confuse the franchise with the author of the founding works that launched it (in Lovecraft's case, the franchise didn't exist until after his death).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge works template into H. P. Lovecraft template.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep all. I know that some editors prefer one bloated super-template, but I'd say short & to the point templates are better - the sample edit mentioned above is HUGE. Use H.P. Lovecraft as a top-level one, use Works of on individual works, Use Mythos on stuff like gods & monsters & concepts. SnowFire (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
If the Cthulhu Mythos stuff is moved from the {{H. P. Lovecraft}} to {{Cthulhu Mythos}}, this reduces the size if the main and works navboxes are combined. i.e. have one in-universe navbox, and one real-world navbox. --woodensuperman 09:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Just merging Lovecraft & Works, while having a separate template for in-universe Mythos, would be my second preference, sure. SnowFire (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I think this is the sensible way to go forward. --woodensuperman 08:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
This amounts to what I suggested as well, so I think we have a winner.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  10:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
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:Mediated[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) WBGconverse 11:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

MedComcruft. Kamafa Delgato (Lojbanist)Styrofoam is not made from kittens. 04:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Mark as historical There's no need to delete. SemiHypercube 20:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Identical nominations merged. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can’t see the merit to retaining templates from a process that no longer exists. The project pages, one might look at to understand the history. The templates? --Bsherr (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
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:Science portalbar[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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Redundant with {{Portals browsebar}}, most of the links are subtopics, they are normally provided in the the Topics or related portal section. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Suggestion - Portals browsebar. Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep provides relevant links for science portals. In use at the moment. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Let each of the portals pages decide whether the use of this template is desirable or not. If it ends up an orphan, we can reconsider it here. --Bsherr (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
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:Military portals browsebar[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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Propose deletion or merging:Little used portal template, most of the links are subtopics, they are normally provided in the the Topics or related portal section. Template complementary to {{Portals browsebar}}, but that can present a very large number of links by cluttering the top of the portals. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals#Suggestion - Portals browsebar. Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. Let each of the portals pages decide whether the use of this template is desirable or not. If it ends up an orphan, we can reconsider it here. --Bsherr (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Bagumba and The Transhumanist: Ping those who participated in the previous discussion, if they want to participate here or #Template:Science portalbar above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
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:White Power sidebar[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) Hhkohh (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Non-neutral template which falsely implies academic legitimacy to a WP:FRINGE portion of a fringe movement. Few of these article are directly about white power, which was a a slogan either coined or popularized by an American Nazi in the 1960s. Many of these linked topics predate this slogan by decades or centuries, and are not commonly discussed as connected to "white power". White supremacy, perhaps, but not any of the other buzzwords and euphemisms used by extremists. Just saying racism would also be far more neutral.

This template was created at the same time as this article, which was very poorly sourced and unacceptably non-neutral for multiple reasons. Grayfell (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell Calling it non-neutral is misleading. The template does not take a positive stance. I do not know why you think it "implies academic legitimacy". Almost everybody knows white power is a racist fringe movement and does not have academic legitimacy. Might as well delete the templates for Nazism, fascism, and alt-right if you think having templates somehow "implies academic legitimacy". I created the White Power article to document the slogan and it's history and impact in the same vein like the articles for It's OK to be white and the alt-right documents their history and impact (especially in these times). As a matter of fact, white power is an older term than the previous mention terms. The article was barely created so it's not going to be as established as other articles. When the It's OK to be white article was created, it was just a sentence and one source. How is it "unacceptably non-neutral"? I tried to make sure it was as neutral as possible. If you have any comments or suggestions to improve the article then we can have a discussion about it. Dash9Z (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
As a starting point, a sidebar suggests that "white power" was a coherent movement with an agreed-upon set of connected topics. This has not been demonstrated, because it was a slogan used by a Nazi to mobilize angry scared racists. It was a euphemism crafted specifically to capitalize on white people's confusion and fear over "black power", a term with a completely different history and intention. They cannot be treated as equivalent. Sources don't treat it the same, and neither does Wikipedia. The burden is on you to demonstrate why a topic without an article deserves a sidebar. You tried to create an article, but it was essay-like, very poorly sourced, and loaded with non-neutral editorializing. If you want to discuss those problems, there are other places to do that, but you will have a hell of a lot of work ahead of you to make that article happen.
The suggestive or arbitrary choices in which articles you placed in this template undermine the neutrality of this effort, as well. What on Earth does An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, written in 1855, say about "white power"? Isn't "white power" just a fawning, transparent attempt to make "white supremacy" sound sexier? If not, why did you include so many articles which don't mention or discuss the slogan in any way? Wikipedia is not a platform for this kind of naked PR. Further, White supremacy is anathema to Wikipedia's goals as an encyclopedia, and any attempt to promote this ideology needs to be evaluated carefully. There is no topic on "white power" which isn't also white supremacy, and attempting to abuse Wikipedia to imply these topics share a common thread undermines Wikipedia's goals.
Comparing this to other articles is a waste of time. Alt-right has its own article with its own sources and its own problems. Grayfell (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

This seems to group together quite disparate people & their ideas whose only link is being both white and racist. Is that something that can be accurately grouped with a sidebar? Do those things make sense to have a sidebar for? In my opinion, this isn't something we should have. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)*\

  • Delete - This is a blatant POV template made to promote "White Power" by presenting it as a coherent political philosophy. Nuke from orbit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The constituents of the sidebar do seem to me to be related. Is there another, encyclopedic topic under which they all might be labeled? White nationalism or white supremacy? Perhaps with cutting down if needed to stay on topic? I didn’t find any evidence that the sidebar was biased. The comments here certainly are. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a abhorrent, but we surely have sidebars for abhorrent topics too. Bsherr (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "Is there another, encyclopedic topic under which they all might be labeled?" "Racism"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that is one of Grayfell’s suggestions above, but that seems overbroad. White supremacy, Grayfell’s other suggestion, seems a better fit. Bsherr (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - It seems to have passed unnoticed that the creator of the template, User:Dash9Z, is now in favor of deleting it. See their comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unnecessary template that groups together unrelated topics like Eurocentrism, Ku Klux Klan and some randomly selected historical persons. POV is strong here. - Darwinek (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete a crap-load of WP:SYNTH that would probably be a POV issue if it were on any pages. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
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:School of London[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 December 8. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Infobox song list[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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Only 2 transclusions and doesn't really seem to add any value to the articles. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, after including the content in the template body in prose, or a regular table. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Wow, I forgot I made this ten years ago! Very unnecessary, please delete. Andre666 (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and comments above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
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).