Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 26[edit]

Template:WikiProject Kangleipak[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abortive attempt to create a WikiProject page in Template space. Unused, no useful history. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 22:33, 26 February 2021 (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).


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. To answer the main question I have considered whether there is or is not a consensus that a template suppressing a selection of identifiers on artist biographies could be beneficial to our readers. !Votes from both sides not directly addressing this question or citing another editor who did have been given very little weight. I have also given less weight to !votes mainly raising implementation concerns such as which identifiers should be suppressed and which pages it should be applied to. This is because it has been long established procedure that Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing (WP:TFD#REASONS) and If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page (WP:ATD). This still leaves significant concerns about the template but there is in the end a consensus to keep the template.

I will also elaborate on the status of other issues raised in this discussion since this is by far the most comprehensive discussion on the template and it may assist in making future improvements as smooth as possible.

  • The links suppressed by the template were in general not decided following some discussion and only have some amount of presumed level of consensus due to no objections being raised to them before this discussion. The only new consensus reached in this discussion with regards to the selection is that Trove shouldn't be suppressed, but some concerns have been raised. Further discussion is welcome at Template talk:Authority control.
  • Future wrappers of {{Authority control}} would be unsuitable to create or deploy before a discussion regarding it took place. This discussion shows they are controversial and its best to get more input on what identifiers should be suppressed if any at all.
  • Deployment of the template included it being added to some articles where it probably shouldn't have been. Mistakes are unavoidable, but I urge everyone to be careful to minimize them and not to make them if it is uncertain whether the change have consensus. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:ACArt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Recent and redundant fork of {{Authority control}}, to which any missing art-related identifiers should be added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, not a redundant fork. We are not supposed to be an indiscriminate collection of all possible identifiers. The template has been discussed at ANI, no objections were forthcoming.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion at ANI (link?) is irrelevant. ANI is not TfD, and deals with matters requiring administrator intervention (which template forks generally are not) only. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. "Recent" is hardly relevant. I agree that all missing art-related identifiers should be added to Authority Control, as no identifiers are added to ACArt at all. All ACArt does is hide a number of less relevant identifiers for most art-related articles, and only show the ones that are most useful, using Authority Control. For example, at Pablo Picasso, this reduced the 43 identifiers (rough count to 17: so still plenty of identifiers, but just keeping these with most relevance for art and/or enwiki. As no real, accurate argument has been formulated why this would need deletion, and the deletion reason shows a misunderstanding of what happens with the template, I think this can be speedy kept. Fram (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even more reason to delete it, then, since it seems this is just an attemt to run around your failed attempt to delete {{Authority control}}. There is no need to hide identifiers; and those hidden by this template are not "less relevant" - or do we have no articles on, (for example) Spanish, Catalan, or Australian artists? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As others have already pointed out, this argument seems erroneous: The template is not a fork and clearly it is not "redundant" in that it presents different content to the reader, which seems to be the core point of contention. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Unnecessary fork of {{Authority control}}. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete On looking closer, it isn't a fork (as the 1st edit summary implied), but a wrapper to chose specific identifiers to show/suppress. In that case, it should just be deleted, or it should be argued on the authority control template talk about whether it's worth defining subsets of authority controls for specific topics (e.g., 'authoritycontrol|select=art'), although I generally think that would be a bad idea anyway. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Serves no useful purpose.14GTR (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why on earth are we thrusting this machine-readable metadata gibberish in the faces of readers? Ideally keep it on wikidata where it belongs, or bury it in an infobox if you must, or the talk page, where it can safely be ignored.

    Case in point: Vincent van Gogh is "BNF: cb11927591g (data)BPN: 32545490, 31473481GND: 118540416KulturNav: 2192c545-cc43-43b4-8abd-1cd22af701dcLCCN: n79022935NLA: 35130087RKD: 32439SNAC: w60g3k35SUDOC: 027176207ULAN: 500115588VIAF: 9854560WorldCat Identities: lccn-n79022935"

    What? Theramin (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Theramin:; the template ACArt is an attempt to reduce the amount of gibberish: while it keeps the poor formatting (another aspect I want to improve one day), it tries to make sure that you get less of it, and that you no longer get the ones that are not useful for the subject of the article on enwiki (they are useful on Wikidata, and on some other language-wiki, but not here). Fram (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reduction is not sufficient. What is a reader meant to do with the dozen or two random alphanumeric strings we append to these articles? For whose benefit are we doing this?
      • But in any event, this conversation seems to be proceeding on the mistaken assumption that the template is limited to biographical articles about artists. And in some cases that might make some sense, if we need to distinguish John Smith from John Smith from John Smith (although each has a different middle name and different dates of birth and death). But we don't need to indiscriminately spam each article with a dozen or more different and inconsistent ways to distinguish between them:
        John Smith (engraver): AAG: 10244AGSA: 5538BNF: cb14976542g (data)GND: 118797697ISNI: 0000 0001 1798 0891LCCN: no2004097781NLP: A2703768XNSK: 000625969NTA: 318564599PLWABN: 9810574858305606SNAC: w68r01t2ULAN: 500006468VcBA: 495/153815VIAF: 89128657WorldCat Identities: lccn-no2004097781
        John Raphael Smith: AAG: 2238AGSA: 3811, 10212BNE: XX1477259BNF: cb14958759t (data), cb135364416 (data)GND: 121151611ISNI: 0000 0001 1678 3773LCCN: n83013596NGV: 5386NKC: jo2004214942NLA: 36339895NLI: 000451836NTA: 137665938PLWABN: 9810621842105606RKD: 73455SNAC: w6699rkxSUDOC: 050664549TePapa: 14254Trove: ***:1248450ULAN: 500116497VIAF: 79202309WorldCat Identities: lccn-n83013596
        John Warwick Smith: BNE: XX1763808GND: 13335380XISNI: 0000 0000 6633 1823LCCN: nr91033082PLWABN: 9810546202705606RKD: 73458SNAC: w6jq1bxnTePapa: 2116Trove: 1257227ULAN: 500009954VcBA: 495/39708VIAF: 313041903WorldCat Identities: lccn-nr91033082
      • I am not at all convinced that we need to distinguish Vincent van Gogh or Pablo Picasso from all the other artists called Vincent van Gogh or Pablo Picasso, or indiscriminately supplement the long lists of references and external links that those articles already contain with yet more links to bibliographic identifications for them.
      • In any event, this template and its older sibling are not just appearing on biographical articles: they are also popping up all over the shop, including for example articles about paintings where the template displays nothing at all save an error message [1] (before I removed it) or adds just one external link which adds nothing helpful at all (ditto, again). There are examples of the templates on hisorical periods and musical instruments and concepts such as Curiosity and Eloquence. With all due respect to our colleagues in Germany, we don't need the Gemeinsame Normdatei and Deut­sche National­bibliothek to tell us what these mean, or distinguish them from other things.
      • Look, perhaps we could assign a unique identifier to each article - I don't know, perhaps unique number - and maintain a database somewhere that collects all the incompatible bits of "authority" information assigned by the dozens of different external institutions together in one place for ease of reference. Maybe also collect other relational information and metadata, such as references and dates and so on. But there is no need for all of that undigested information to appear on the face of the encyclopedia, and certainly not without some thoughtful selection of what should appear in each case.
      • Oh, I give up. Why am I wasting my time on this nonsense. Theramin (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you wish to reduce the number of identifiers we use, raise an RfC. Template forking as fait accompli is not the way to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that we had some policy that decreed that all IDs available in Authority Control have to be shown on all pages. IDs are added all the time on the basis of a discussion between very few people at the template talk page (fine), but creating a wrapper which makes the template more focused for specific groups of articles is not allowed? No identifiers are being removed from authority control (never mind from Wikidata), but that doesn't mean that all of them have to be shown (when available) on all pages. Fram (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • We have them displayed by consensus. If you wish to change that consensus, start an RfC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Starting a TfD while misunderstanding what this template does, then changing your reason to something completely different (and also wrong), and at the same time demanding an RfC? No thanks. I have introduced this template at ANI, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, and at Wikipedia talk:Authority control. It has been added to very high profile pages by multiple editors (though most by me, as I do it systematically). Others thanked me for these edits. Apart from a concern about the name of the template, no issues were raised, until out of the blue this misguided TfD appeared. If the people who actually edit these art pages have no issues with it and many seem to welcome it, then I see no reason to start an RfC based on your "consensus" based on a few editors and a lack of alternatives, or while your TfD is ongoing. Fram (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I understand very well what this template does; it removes linked authority control IDs from biographies, without consensus to do so and as a work around to your failed - indeed, WP:SNOW-closed - attempt at deleting {{Authority control}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think you are claiming a consensus or consensus requirement that does not exist. I looked at the deletion discussion you refer to, and while it clearly rejected to delete the template entirely, it also does not support the notion that it must be used in absolutely every applicable article with precisely the same set of links. To quote the very first "keep" !vote from there: "A good argument to have it trimmed, or redesigned, but not deleted"; and the trimming seems to be precisely what some folks here seem to be rejecting without good arguments. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' Per Fram; much less crufty than the full one. I see no editors who actually add content in this area want to delete. Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • People are arguing for deletion (or merging, no idea how that would be done) because on the one hand it is a "redundant" or "unnecessary" fork, and on the other hand because it is an end run around the failed deletion of the main template. Obviously, it can be one or none of these, but it can hardly be both at the same time. Since ACArt is fully dependent on authority control, it is hardly an end run: deletion of authority control would make ACArt worthless, and ACArt shows AC identifiers, only not as many. So not an attempt to delete the template through the backdoor (like I said, something like Auguste Rodin now shows about 17 IDs, roughly half of what it showed before. Which also shows that it isn't a redundant fork, it has clearly different results, a different output. It is now used on some 8000+ pages, including many high-profile ones, and the editors of these pages seem either not to care or to approve. The template obviously still can be improved (which I plan to do this week), but deletion seems unawarranted. Fram (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note; the template has been somewhat improved to now allow the addition of specific IDs for one country (e.g. the National Library of Japan can be shown for Japanese artists, but hidden for others). More improvements of the template are welcome! Fram (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Speaking as an art historian and someone who works in the cultural sector: it is extremely useful for people like me to have a comprehensive selection of links to external datasets about an artist on Wikipedia. A comprehensive selection helps to demonstrate an artist's worldwide influence (or lack thereof). The links to authority control databases are a jumping board to other resources, usually via national libraries. Its comprehensiveness enhances Wikipedia's reputation as a trustworthy and useful resource for art history and in the cultural sector in general, especially as no other resources around the world provide this comprehensive interlinking. Reversely, if Wikipedians start making subjective selections of identifiers that are deemed OK and others that are deemed not, that's not doing Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral resource any good. Spinster (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Spinster:, "especially as no other resources around the world provide this comprehensive interlinking." is not true. The comprehensive interlinking is done at Wikidata: Wikipedia displays only a selection of these anyway (in the template authority control). Relying on Wikipedia for this functionality is not correct, this is something where you should rely on Wikidata (all the links are stored on Wikidata anyway, nothing displayed in either Authority Control or in ACArt is stored on enwiki). Fram (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spinster, which other resources or information can you for example find through the two RERO links for Mark Twain? 12? How many enwiki readers will have any use, ever, from these links? And on the other hand, for the few people like you for which this is useful information, then why stop at the 40 or so links we already have in the authority control template of that article, and not add the countless others listed in the Wikidata item? Why is the selection made by authority control acceptable and your go-to place (instead of Wikidata directly), but the selection made by ACArt unacceptable? Fram (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Keep, but rename to {{Authority control (arts)}} per Template talk:Authority control#Template:ACArt name. Not a fork, but a wrapper. Some users have expressed a desire to truncate/only show a subset of IDs, usually as it relates to a/their particular subject area. I see no harm in this.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  12:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tom.Reding: Woulld it be practical to add a parameter to Template:Authority control to handle this? There are way too many templates at Wikipedia as it is. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert.Allen: that depends on what you mean by practical. Can it be done? Yes. Should it be done? Probably not. It's better to build discrete systems on top of each other than to put them all together. See Template talk:Authority control#Template:ACArt name for some examples.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  11:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote from Keep -> Neutral and striking my last sentence, due to policing concerns. As pointed out by Aymatth2 below, well-intentioned editors may inappropriately place {{ACArt}} on art-straddling/art-adjacent subjects. There's currently no tracking mechanism in {{ACArt}} to find such cases. Hidden tracking cats should be placed when {{ACArt}} suppresses more than, say, 4 IDs, and broken down by # of suppressions (similar to the Category:AC with 25 elements series).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per Spinster, Gamaliel and 14GTR. Smirkybec (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The guideline WP:EL states that "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." The previous TfD for the authority control template establishes that some or many of the links it provides are useful (and should not be deleted without replacement), but the assertion that the identifiers in that template must be linked in their entirety, rather than a select subset, is in plain violation of that guideline and lacks consensus. Obviously it would be impractical to specify exactly which identifiers to link for each individual biographical article, but creating wrappers like these for broad biographical categories (like artists) seem like a useful intermediate step to help bring our articles into compliance with WP:EL. I understand the appeal of "comprehensiveness" as an abstract quality, but Theramin's comments show very clearly how useless it makes this template for most readers. Choess (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As an editor who works almost entirely on "artists", it seems like an unnecessary distinction. Also, I like having authority control information at the bottom of the article and do not consider it cruft. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi @WomenArtistUpdates:, two questions. First, can you please give some examples of articles where the ACArt template is used (some 10,000 pages now) where some authority control has disappeared that you found useful? I tried to eliminate only those of no use in an enwiki article, but it may be that there are some I need to reconsider. You can see the full list here. Second, if I may; I can't help but notice that apart from Mike Peel and PigsontheWing, who are both heavily into Wikidata and templates and thus logical appearances here, all delete votes are from people who are either members of Women in Red or seem to be closely associated with it. It seems unlikely that only this group would arrive here to vote "delete" as a pure coincidence (it is not as if the template is directly connected to WiR in any way), so do you (or anyone else) know where and how this discussion was advertised? Thanks! Fram (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fram It actually is a coincidence. I know there was a discussion because the articles I have created are on my watchlist and it has been lit up with changes to the authority control template.I will not engage further with you. I hesitated to even vote on this as your reputation precedes you. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fram There is no grand conspiracy, like WomenArtistUpdates, I saw you editing many articles I have created and/or have in my watch list and decided independently that it was not an improvement. Smirkybec (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just noticed this (I was mentioned, but not pinged). I think it's important to note that Andy posted to the GlamWiki facebook group about this template several days after starting this TfD. I'm saying this for transparency's sake, although I'm concerned that Fram will instantly pounce on it and try to yell conspiracy where none was intended, and I note that there seem to be past on-wiki discussions about this topic that don't seem to have been linked here (there was a deletion debate, something on ANI, and maybe other discussions - somewhere?). From my side, I was already aware of the template before then, and was going to look into it: the facebook post prompted me to look again a bit sooner, and led to me posting my !vote above, but didn't influence my comment - it just meant that I posted it a bit earlier than I would have otherwise. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. Fram (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with Mike Peel that that Facebook discussion is not a "conspiracy"; still, as it quite clearly contributed to a conspicuous wave of "delete" !votes, it is worth mentioning here (and Mike deserves thanks for doing so). Furthermore:
        •  Comment: to closing admin: Considering that this Facebook discussion was initiated by the deletion nominator with an obviously non-neutral summary of (part of) the controversy he was involved in (and later participants directly linked this TfD discussion with a call to "chime in"), this is a clear case of WP:CANVAS. In addition, while some of the canvassed !voters added value to the discussion, several others left "delete" votes that did not provide actual arguments. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just to note that brevity is not a sin. I know I left quite a short !vote, but others have commented on the negatives of this template much better than I could. Also, the aggressiveness and length of Fram's replies will have put people off commenting (either commenting significantly, thus ensuring an aggressive response, or commenting at all). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I would need some examples of what kind of identifiers are excluded by ACArt. Generally I work on fairly obscure artists and the more identifiers the better, but as long as useful information isn't being lost, I'd be in favour of keeping an an artist-specfic template. Curiocurio (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Curiocurio:: these are the ones excluded by default; ACM-DL,, BIBSYS, BNC, BNE, Botanist, CANTIC, CINII, CWGC, DAAO, DBLP, HDS, IAAF, ICCU, ISNI, LIR, LNB, MBA, MBAREA, MBI, MBL, MBP, MBRG, MBS, MBW, NBL, NCL, NDL, NKC, NLG, NLI, NLK, NLP, NLR, NSK, NTA, ORCID, PLWABN, RERO, RID, RSL, SELIBR, S2AuthorId, TA98, TDVIA, TE, TH, TLS, Trove, UKPARL, USCongress, VcBA. In many cases, one or two can be re-included by adding a country-specific parameter, e.g. "country=ES" will also display BNE and CANTIC. (See Template:ACArt/doc for more on this). New IDs which are added to authority control are by default included in ACArt: they need to be explicitly excluded in the template code to be hidden. Fram (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Fram:: Thanks for providing the list. I went through it as best I could. There are many obviously unsuitable databases excluded, especially those concerning science and technology. I am somewhat troubled by the exclusion of many national libraries, although as you say many of them can be reincorporated by using a country-specific code. This requires a a level of sophistication on the part of the editor however. Curiocurio (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The intention is indeed that the relevant national libraries will be shown by using the parameter. I plan to soon start on Spanish artists, and those I will by default give the "country=Es" parameter. As an example, I looked at article 1001 of the ones now using the template; Jean Raoux. It had 11 entries in the old version, and 8 in the new one, removing isni, a Polish database[2], and the Vatican library[3]. I don't think any of these three added anything of value to the article. Note that this person has 40 identifiers at Wikidata! Fram (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I sympathize with the above comment that many artists, especially Eastern and niche ones, are not in too many databases, so limiting the amount is unhelpful for them. Additionally, 99% of readers don't even know the authority control links exist. Why limit links for the 1% that do? Users are making it seem like these links are causing readers seem internal pain or confusion on "There's too many links which do I click??"—but once again, most readers don't care (making this a useless distinction) and most artists are not Van Gogh (making limiting the supposably "overkill amount" of links unproductive). Aza24 (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Aza24: can you give some examples of artist articles where ACArt has (or would) remove identifiers you find useful? In most or all cases, the most likely, logical, prevalent links aren't removed (e.g. worldcat and VIAF are left alone, as are the Library of Congress and all art-related IDs), and for countries where an ID exists for e.g. their national library, an easy parameteris available to add that one (e.g. "country=CZ" for Czechia will add the NKC). So a few examples would help me to understand in what cases the template is actually unhelpful. Fram (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fram, I made the mistake of doing little research before my comment and now find that some minor artists that came to mind are little effected by such a template (and have rescinded my comments above accordingly). However, I still question any positive impact the template gives the reader, and furthermore, it seems improper to create such a template as the result on an ANI discussion, which seemingly overturns a long term status quo on the use of authority control. What I would like to see, is a larger conversation on the subject, potentially exploring a realm of possibilities with creating equivalent templates for composers, writers, politicians etc. Before such a conversation, I don't know if I can support a specially curated template for artists and no others. Aza24 (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for re-evaluating. I created one for arts/artists, because this is by far the largest group of topic-specific authority IDs we now have. Other professions often only have one or no specific ID in authority control (e.g. for sports, we only have the IAAF, and nothing for other sports if I recall correctly). My plan was to build country-specific ones next, which only show the IDs from either English-language sources (e.g. Library of Congress), and from sources with a country- or language-connection to the topic (so for Belgium, I would show IDs from English language sources plus Belgium, France, the Netherlands, perhaps Germany, but not from elsewhere). But when this TfD is closed, I'll probably try to write an RfC to get wider input on this, as opinions are quite divided among this small sample of people. We'll never be able to please everyone (show nothing vs. show everything is hard to combine), so it would be good to know if the current situation pleases most people, or whether something different would get the most support. It will require a good explanation of the whole setup though, as I have noticed in many discussions that most people have no idea what happens and what is possible. Fram (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a bad idea to distinguish people, especially if their main notability is not based on being an artist. Now references to libraries are deleted. It would also set a precedent for even more subdivisions. KittenKlub (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have trouble understanding what you mean here. This template should normally be applied to articles about people whose main notability is being an artist. We distinguish people and articles in general all the time, no idea why this is a problem. We have e.g. specialized infoboxes for people based on their main claim to notability, and these show or suppress fields which other infoboxes may or may not have, based on what is most relevant for the person and their occupation. And no references are deleted, authority control are not references anyway: they are external links, taken from Wikidata (where they all remain). Do you have examples of articles where this template made things worse, examples of libraries which provided a valuable external link to that article for enwiki readers and which are now gone? Fram (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ru Paré is known as WW2 resistance hero who happened to be an artist as well, and you changed her to Art, because she has an artists category, and thus deleted the references to the libraries. Besides that it is extremely unclear for most people who simply put Authority Control underneath a biography. There's no need whatsoever to have x versions whose purpose is to remove content. KittenKlub (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you. I have added the "country=NL" parameter, the Dutch National Library is back in the authority control template now. People are still free to put authority control in their articles, nothing has changed at that template. But people now have a choice: opinions are clearly seriously divided over whether we should display as many authority IDs as possible (and note that there are many, many more than are being shown through the main authority control template anyway: e.g. for Ru Paré there are already 5 additional identifiers in Wikidata which aren't included anyway), or a select, more tailored subset. The division would be "full" at Wikidata (as it is now), and "precise" at enwiki (which it isn't now, it is now a rather random selection of IDs with a one-size-fits-all approach). And yes, "precise" would require either specific templates (like ACArt) or parameters at authority control (say, "authority control|art" or something similar). If the latter would get introduced, ACArt could very easily be changed to call that specific parameter. Fram (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I remain with my delete vote. Before you know it, you have one for musicians, authors and who knows how many more. Besides that those acronyms are totally obscure for most people anyhow, so one or two more entries is no big deal. KittenKlub (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I hope to change the acronym/ID combination in the template to a descriptive namelink, but I can't do it all at once. A template that said (with the names as links to the ID page) "Biografisch Portaal * Library of Congress * Royal Library of the Netherlands * Netherlands Institute for Art History * Virtual International Authority File * Worldcat" would be a lot clearer. If this improvement would be created at the authority control template, it would automatically also appear in the ACArt template. Fram (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This template appears to be unnecessary and possibly deleterious, since it may omit useful links. If pruning is needed, it should be done at Wikidata. --Robert.Allen (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would you omit links which Wikidata wants but we don't? We have no say over what Wikidata includes or not. The pruning is done at Template:Authority control (for all of enwiki), and then further here (for a specific, though large, group of articles) because we have no say over what Wikidata includes (and there is no reason that we should, they cater for more than just enwiki). If you want to include everything that Wikidata has, then perhaps it would be better to add that to the sidebar, similar to the way that interwiki links are shown, that way, no one here needs to maintain code, request addition (or removal) of IDs at template talk:authority control, ... Anyway, every attempt is made to not exclude useful links but only the (for these articles, and on enwiki) useless ones. For example, for Jacques Callot, ACArt keeps 14 identifiers, but omits 11 others, e.g. this, or this, or this. We can hardly ask Wikidata to remove these, as they are correct and necessary links for jawiki, sewiki, ... And we can hardly include all Wikidata IDs, they have more than 100 different IDs for Jacques Callot (and new ones are added all the time).
    • TLDR: We can't do this at Wikidata, we already (in the standard template) omit many links, and the ones further omitted here are carefully chosen and are really of very little value for enwiki readers. Fram (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you can explain why, for Jacques Callot, and for every other biography using this template, you think ISNI, Trove and Vatican library IDs, for example, are "useless"? Perhaps the Catholic church never employed artists? As for "How would you omit links which Wikidata wants but we don't?", that is already possible (albeit rarely desirable) in . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The comment I answered was "If pruning is needed, it should be done at Wikidata": you reply about how it is done here, which doesn't answer the question, and is thus hardly relevant as a reply to me. Now, ignoring the snark in the questions, to Jacques Callot, and the suppressed entries: have you looked at them? The Vatican Library entry doesn't really tell us anything, not even whether he was ever employed by the Vatican or the Catholic Church in general. Take for example Rubens, obviously employed by the Catholic Church: his entry is not very informative or useful, is it? Even for artists who did work for the Vatican, the authority file doesn't give any additional information[4]. So yes, for nearly every reader of enwiki, for artist articles, this is a useless ID (I haven't checked if it is any better for e.g. writers). ISNI doesn't seem to have any information not already in an easier to read format in other entries of the authority files. Trove, I suppose I could add that one as it is in English and useful for Australian readers. Fram (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • The question you asked, and to which I responded (and indeed, quoted in my response) was "How would you omit links which Wikidata wants but we don't?". So much for snark. Furthermore, I didn't ask you about the pages linked to; I asked you why you thought the identifiers are not useful. Not only have you ignored that question, but you are aware of the difference between the two, or should be, as it was the crux of opposition to your failed attempt to delete {{Authority control}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Do you really think many people would support the AC template if it was just IDs as such and not links? I didn't realise that your question about the IDs was so literal and extreme. So no, I don't think the raw IDs (any of them) are useful in enwiki articles: we have Wikidata for that kind of stuff. The IDs as links are useful if the linked page has additional information, preferably in a manner understandable to most readers here. So e.g. the Vatican page is not useful as an ID nor as a link. Unless your answers are in a neutral, impersonal fashion, I'll not reply to further replies by you. Fram (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Right. So now we can see without doubt that you do not support the purpose of {{Authority control}}; and we already know that your attempt to have that template deleted failed as a snow close, because consensus to use as designed is massively agaist you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • The purpose? "Direct benefits to readers are direct access to these linked works where available (e.g. finding a library holding a particular book on a topic)." The links that have been removed do not have that benefit for our readers. The consensus here, even with your canvassed audience, doesn't seem to be that massively against me either. Fram (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have readded Trove, it will again show up at all articles that use ACArt and where a Trove ID exists. Fram (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppression examples: for anyone wishing to see/find pages with suppressed IDs (i.e. the ID must exist on WD & be suppressed via this template), Category:Wikipedia articles with suppressed authority control identifiers (0) currently contains 7,578 pages, and 7,530 of them (99.4%) transclude {{ACArt}}. There are another ~3,200 {{ACArt}} transclusions that aren't currently suppressing IDs b/c they don't exist in WD yet, so looking at the transclusion list would not be efficient.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  11:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fram. I'm sympathetic to the arguments that the normal AC is too bulky to the point of being useless. An attempt to improve relevance on a given article seems, to me, a good thing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and enforce replacement of templates with this template. Some articles are carrying authority control boxes which are out of control in size. Keep those identifiers to the point and selected. If the obscure number is needed in one case, it can be accessed through WikiData, and, alternatively, through the full template on the talkpage of the subject. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or eliminate suppression of links that are not "art related". Artists are often known for more than their art. For example, Winston Churchill, an accomplished artist, was better known for his books. The purpose of {{Authority control}} is to link to index entries for the subject of the article. There is no good reason to suppress index entries because they are not specific to "artists" or, worse, because they are not specific to "British artists". If the BnF has an entry for Churchill, I want to see it. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This shouldn't be used on entries where the topic is also (or in the case of Churchill much better) known for other occupations. So unrelated to this actual template, but more in general; what's the point, in the enwiki article (not in Wikidata), of having the following links or ids: [5][6][7][8][9][10]... And if all 33 are necessary, then why not go all the way and all 200 IDs for Winston Churchill that are currently listed at Wikidata (with new ones added every month)? Never mind that we aren't an indiscriminate link collection, that the informational value for our readers becomes near-zero, and that it gets harder and harder to find the interesting ones among the overload of repetetive ones. Fram (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • "This shouldn't be used on entries where the topic is also (or in the case of Churchill much better) known for other occupations" And yet you've been adding it to articles on topics as diverse as a fashion designer and a veteran of the French Resistance movement of WWII. And academics. And architectural firms. And artistic movements. And a museum. And individual paintings. And a French Academy. Not to mention a series of comic books.
        "why not go all the way and all 200 IDs for Winston Churchill that are currently listed at Wikidata" A combination of a slippery slope fallacy and a classic straw man argument. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fashion designers, comic books, art museums, artistic movements ... are all art-related entries for which ACArt is meant to be used (the resistance fighter is discussed above, and the ACArt template makes no difference there). I don't know what kind of 'gotcha' you meant with this reply. As for Churchill: how is it a slippery slope? New IDs are being added constantly to authority control (and to Wikidata), the template gets more and more bloated. Never is a requested entry in the template rejected because "oh no, not more of the same". Please tell me which of the 200 IDs at Wikidata would not be added to the template if people asked for them. Perhaps a dozen or so which would be deemed too unreliable, perhaps, if we're lucky? So not a slippery slope, and not a strawman, as it goes directly to the heart of this issue; there are many, many IDs (both already present here, as already present at Wikidata, as potential to be added there and here), and we have basically two opinions: the more the merrier, or let's pick and choose the best ones. Pointing out that the first option may lead to hundreds of IDs is not a strawman, it is fact: just like pointing out that the second option is harder and may lead to other controversy. Neither ACArt nor my uses of it are infallible (though a lot better than what you claim it to be), but that's hardly a reason to delete it instead of trying to improve it (e.g. by the re-addition of Trove). Fram (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • For example, one artistic movement which has gotten the ACArt template is Cubism. This kept some IDs, but removed this one. Not much of a loss it seems. Having such a template which can be used on a wide range of articles is a positive element, not something negative as you portray it. The aim is not to have thousands of micro-managed subtemplates, but relatively few, easy to use templates which can be used on thousands upon thousands of articles, but not (like authority control) on millions of even more diverse subjects. Fram (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wasn't referring to Ru Paré, and I was not referring to a "resistance fighter". Many - the majority - of the 200 IDs to which you keep mischievously referring to would not be added to the template; as you well know, several have already been requested and declined.Furthermore, a large number of those 200 IDs only apply to a tiny minority of people or topics (and in those cases, may be the only available identifier for that subject: for example UK MPs). Your argument is, as noted, a slippery slope fallacy and a straw man: blatantly so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Mischievously"? Tom.Reding below indicates that adding all 200 would be acceptable, yet you claim that the majority would not be added. Looking at requests to add IDs to the template though, when I scroll through April 2017 to now I see acceptance and addition of WorldCat Identities ID, National Library of Greece ID, UK Parliament identifier, Vatican Library VcBA ID, CWGC person ID, PLWABN ID, Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine ID, Publons author ID, Dictionary of Irish Biography, Microsoft Academic ID, Information Center for Israeli Art artist ID, Stuttgart Database of Scientific Illustrators 1450–1950, Semantic Scholar author ID, Semantic Scholar paper ID, World Athletics athlete ID, DBLP author ID,, Photographers' Identities Catalog. I see, in the same nearly four period, no requests for additions which have been denied. No idea why you then think is is acceptable to make comments like "as you well know, several have already been requested and declined." Please try to keep the discussion focused on the content, and stop making it personalized and antagonistic. Fram (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • "why not go all the way and all 200 IDs for Winston Churchill that are currently listed at Wikidata" - ironically, this would be acceptable, especially for any extremely famous person, as long as (if/when) each ID was agreed to by the WP community. And this is why {{Authority control}} is the bottom-most template.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh yes, having a "bottom" template which has them all (well, excluding things like Quora or Findagrave preferably) is fine, as long as then you can have "top" templates which pick-and-choose from this one to get only the best "fit" per article. But I don't think most readers want to have a 200-id template in articles, where many are useless as source of information for enwiki readers (and not needed to uniquely identify the subject either if you already have some other IDs). Fram (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:ACArt break[edit]

It has been pointed out to me that this fork of {{Authority control}} is not only an attempt to circumvent the failed (as "speedy keep") attempt to delete the original, but it is also an underhand attempt to subvert the failed RfC which sought to remove the MusicBrainz ID from the original template; use of the new fork removes - without discussion - that identifier from biographies of artists who have designed, or whose work has been used as, album sleeves, of which the are thousands. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point: Stef Kamil Carlens, "a singer-songwriter, musician, composer, and record producer", where Fram has replaced {{Authority control}} with his forked template, removing the MusicBrainz ID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When someone makes a mistake in a few isolated instances, the right to do is correcting the mistake, and if necessary raise it at a talk page. Deletion of a template because it has been applied suboptimally here or there is not the right answer though. Carlens was a mistake, normally I skip musicians. Fram (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The template is clearly controversial. Fram should stop replacing {{Authority control}} with {{ACArt}} until there is consensus. Going forward, I suggest that
  1. The 12,000 changes from {{Authority control}} to {{ACArt}} should be reverted
  2. Replacing {{Authority control}} with another template should only be done after consensus has been reached on the article talk page.
I would also be interested in views on the new templates {{ACArt+}} (same as {{ACArt}} but does not suppress any identifiers), {{ACArt-}} (does not show any identifiers) and {{ACNotArt}} (Only suppresses art-related identifies). Aymatth2 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Funny. Fram (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12K?!? It was only ~8K when I opened this TfD! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12,300. There are enough "Delete" votes above to show that {{ACArt}} should not be used to replace {{Authority control}} without discussion on the article's talk page, so the main contributors to the article can object if they want to. If this template is deleted, anyone who really wants to suppress the MusicBrainz link can always code:
{{Authority control |MBA= }}
They should indicate why they are suppressing the link in the edit summary if not on the talk page.
I hope this template is not the first of a flood of link suppression templates, e.g. {{ACSoccer}} for soccer players, or {{ACFrance}} for French people, suppressing links to index entries for other aspects of their biography. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you may be aware, consensus is determined by strength of arguments rather than by counting numbers (and at a skim, even counting numbers the outcome doesn't appear to be as clear as you describe). A neutral, uninvolved closer will come along and determine what exactly the community sentiment on this template is. The closer may also note that the community has generally preferred the usage of templates to be tailored to being appropriate for a given article, and has codified this in PAGs (for example, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and WP:NAVBOX) or in TfD precedent and essays (such as WP:NENAN), and generally tends not to be in favour of templates that indiscriminately chuck everything at the reader without regard to relevance. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, the votes so far are:
The discussion started with a flurry of short "keeps" then progressed to more "deletes" and longer rationales, with some vote changes.
  • Arguments for {{ACArt}} include that it reduces unreadable clutter at the back of an article and avoids excessive external links per Wikipedia:External links.
  • Arguments against {{ACArt}} include that it is a redundant fork of {{authority control}}; selection of relevant authority control links should be decided at Wikidata; the links are out of the way at the foot of the article; the complete set of links shows the influence of the artist and is extremely useful to workers in the cultural sector; and {{ACArt}} drops relevant links for people who are more than just artists.
This is another version of the minimalist / maximalist debate. Should we reduce Wikipedia to the essentials or include all available information? We are not going to reach consensus on that. If we decide to keep this template, conversion of articles from {{authority control}} to {{ACArt}} should be subject to agreement on the talk page of each article. A bulk conversion from {{authority control}} to {{ACArt}} has not been and will not be agreed, so Fram's 12,300 edits should be reverted. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia works by WP:BEBOLD. Requiring talk page consensus to change the template would be infeasible. In the same way, did 1.75 million transclusions of AC appear by consensus and talk page discussion, or by AWB spam? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I always include {{authority control}} in new articles and assume many other editors do the same, hence the many transclusions of {{authority control}}. Assuming {{ACArt}} is kept, editors may start articles with {{ACArt}}, and converting these to use {{authority control}} should also be subject to talk page consensus. Converting from one style to the other would be sensitive, like changing citation style, and should be agreed first as in WP:CITEVAR. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "redundant fork" argument is worthless, as it clearly produces a different result than the authority control template. The "selection should happen at Wikidata" is probable even worse: Wikidata has nothing to say about what we show or don't show in our articles (and vice versa; we have nothing to say about what Wikidata includes). "The links are out of the way at the foot of the article" is not an argument to decide for or against ACArt, all WP:EL are out of the way at the foot of the article, but not everything gets accepted or is allowed there. This leaves "the complete set of links shows the influence of the artist and is extremely useful to workers in the cultural sector": I very much doubt this though (both elements). The influence of the artist should be clear from the article, not from the number of hits they get in the authority control template (if this truly would be a good measure, one could add a "45 IDs available at Wikidata" instead of enumerating them all of course). And no one has explained how having e.g. the Swedish National Library link at Tintoretto[12] would be "extremely useful" for anyone in the cultural sector: it may be useful for a few software developers, but then they would be much smarter and working more efficient if they used Wikidata for these kind of (re)searches. Fram (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aymatth2 Uh, I'm not neutral, I voted to Delete Smirkybec (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Fixed it. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2021 (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:1986 South American Team of the Year[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fails much of WP:NAVBOX, #4: There doesn't seem to be any content on this team of the year (ie this is completely unreferenced) . #2 the player articles generally don't mention that they were in this team of the year (except in this navbox) #3 they don't mention each other generally. In fact the template seems to be treated as some sort of award banner, which is not what navboxes are about. Content perhaps comes from or something similar. Nigej (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - these types of navboxes can be notable, but I see nothing that indicates this is. Not part of a series, no link to any articles etc. Creator has a track record of questionable templates. GiantSnowman 20:45, 27 February 2021 (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).

Myanmar township templates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of red links with no reasonable chance of ever becoming an article. Bot created. The Banner talk 11:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Most of the bluelinked "settlements" are unrelated topics with coincidentally similar names, and many more have been converted to redlinks over the years. Although created in good faith for understandable reasons, they have become a maintenance headache with little benefit to the reader. See also similar nominations on nearby dates. Certes (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Per above. Nigej (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:17, 26 February 2021 (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).