Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 30 January 1 >

December 31[edit]

Template:Urban public transport networks and systems in Ukraine[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. Not everything needs a navbar, but there is consensus this navbar is useful enough. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Urban public transport networks and systems in Ukraine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This Navbox merits deletion as it does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria – it has very few direct links, as most are redlinks to nonexistent articles. IJBall (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notability criteria apply to articles, not templates, and this useful navbox has around 20 valid links, with potential for more. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an exceedingly low bar for Navbox to clear to be considered "valid" or useful – surely there's some guidelines on this subject to help us figure out when a Navbox is too "empty" to be kept around... --IJBall (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it isn't; the bar, per the applicable guidelines, WP:NENAN, is "at least five articles" (my emphasis). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, too low a standard. While five would be enough for certain Navboxes, for one like this one it's too low. The guideline should probably be changed to a percentage basis – something like: if only 20% (or perhaps even a higher percentage?) of the links in a Navbox aren't to valid articles, then there is no need for a Navbox. But I have no idea how to change guideline policy on something like this. Suffice it to say, the current policy is allowing far too many marginal Navboxes through. The current nominee should be deleted by an objective appraisal. --IJBall (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • First of all, red links imply notability. They imply a topic that's potentially notable for which an article hasn't yet been created. (See WP:REDLINK.) Secondly, NENAN is neither a guideline nor policy; it's an essay. Thirdly, navboxes are a navigational tool. You'd need to argue the failures of this navbox in performing its actual function. The percentage of red to blue links is a nonsensical metric in arguing the deletion of a navbox. If there's too many red links, just take them out. Alakzi (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, fair point. While I think the current policies on Navboxes are too lax (currently, it seems like everything gets through, whether there's really a need for one or not), I may start implementing what you're suggesting – any Navbox with too many redlinks, and I'll just start taking them out. So, thanks for that – good suggestion. --IJBall (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a very useful template which helps the reader to navigate through all urban transport systems in Ukraine. Andy Mabbett makes a good point as well. Articles are slowly being created too.. § DDima 01:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:PragerU[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. The argument for deletion presented is that the existence of this template serves as an endorcement for using it as an external link. Whether Prager University should be linked from external links is not a matter for TfD itself. The discussion comes down to whether or not this template is useless other than for policy violations. There is no consensus in this discussion that it is. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apparent violation of WP:PROMOTION, WP:ADV, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, and WP:BALASPS. Prager University is a website that publishes short videos of speeches by notable people (similar to TED Talks). DougHill, the creator of the template, has added the template to every Prager U speaker that has his or her own article. (examples: 1, 2, 3) This appears to be an effort to promote Prager U in violation of the above policies and guidelines among others. Most speakers have surely given many speeches more notable than the Prager U ones. Relevant discussion can be found on DougHill's user talk. I do not work on templates so my apologies if this is the wrong forum. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Appears to be a useful external link. The accusation of "promotion" appears to be a baseless failure to assume good faith. (But yes, this is the right forum to discuss potential template deletions). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with objecting to an edit as having an promotional effect. Promotion isn't bad faith. (Articles are routinely speedily deleted under G11 for blatant promotion; I've never heard of a nominator being accused of violating AGF.) And WP:PROMOTION/WP:ADV weren't the only policies/guidelines I cited. How about WP:ELMINOFFICIAL and WP:BALASPS? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't follow. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, and also fails WP:EL. I also think that this template is an effort to promote the website. An ext. link of a speech held by a certain speaker is not automatically intrinsic to the speaker's article. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EL specifically says "This guideline does not apply to inline citations". Where the template is used as an inline citation it should not be objectionable. So P199, would you be willing to change your vote if the template's use is removed or reduced from "external links" sections (see below)? DougHill (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the first editor of this template. Unless Prager University is to be a blacklisted site, there is no reason why it cannot have a template to link to it. It seems to me that DrFleischman's objections are based on my usage of the template, rather than the template itself. He again says that I "added the template to every Prager U speaker that has his or her own article". This is false. Where I found a better video, I linked there instead. But so what if it were true? All I have done was to make systematic use of a good resource. Is there a rule against this? If so, we can reduce the number of links to comply with the rule.
DrFleischman also states "Most speakers have surely given many speeches more notable than the Prager U ones". At least one, perhaps most, but probably not all. Where an editor knows of a better video lecture, the link can and should be replaced. But this should be decided on a case-by-case basis. This is not an argument against all uses of the template.
It seems to me that there is no objection to the template's use as an inline citation, so we should keep it for at least that usage. However, some of you object to its use an an external link. My additions of some of these videos as external links was nothing more than a good faith attempt to improve the pages on their subjects. The documentation for the template reads

The template can be used to link any speaker at the prageruniversity.com website, including the External links section or when citing the video as a source.

This is of course just wikipedia boilerplate, which I thought was standard and led me to think there was nothing wrong with using it as an external link. But if the template cannot be used as an external link, then we should edit the documentation to indicate this. DougHill (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DougHill, can you please provide an example of "Where I found a better video, I linked there instead" from before December 31? I'll also note I've asked you twice to disclose your connection with Prager U and you've ignored me both times. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no affiliation with Prager University. I linked to different videos on Christina Hoff Sommers. Now that I've answered your two questions DrFleischman, will you please answer two of mine? You've made a lot out of your claim that I "added the template to every Prager U speaker that has his or her own article." If I had, could you please cite a specific policy that would have violated? Please don't give us another laundry list, please cite a single, specific, policy. And my second question is: are we still in violation of this policy? DougHill (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (as nom). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nowhere we need to link to the propaganda machine that is Prager "University". Alakzi (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • POV. The fact is that Prager University contains cite-able lectures by notable people. DougHill (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that something is citable in the right context doesn't mean it should be included as an external link in every possible article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we're providing links to the same website on many articles, it is clearly helpful to provide a template so that they may all be formatted alike. Objections to linking the website are irrelevant, since the template's just a formatting device for links that are already present. If you believe that the website shouldn't be linked this way, get consensus to remove the link, and then come back here with a second nomination; "Unused because consensus rejected the use of this website as an external link" is a good argument for deletion of the template; the arguments made by all three of the delete voters are only good arguments for removing the links themselves, not the template. Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started a discussion about linking to Prager U here. Alakzi (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note: This discussion has moved to WP:ELN#Linking to Prager University. All participants are invited to weigh in there if they haven't done so already. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Multiple editors have pointed out that these are related but separate issues. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then shouldn't we close the discussion here so that we can continue it there (where it belongs)? As I read at WP:ATD: "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." Now I'm an involved editor, but this does seem to have been referred to an appropriate forum. And this really does seem to be a content dispute between DrFleischman and me, and not a template issue. (But he's apologized for assuming that all the uses of the template are for external links, when thoese that aren't are not even a point of dispute, are they?) And the new comments below don't add any template issues, and nothing that wasn't addressed by Nyttend above. DougHill. Je suis Charlie. (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the template is just a tool for some editor(s) to promote Prager U more conveniently, and doesn't serve any useful goal with regard to the public getting access to useful information. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The forked discussion mentioned above seems to be acting as canvassing for "delete" !votes here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really now? Damned if you, damned if you don't. Alakzi (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, your comments are way off base and unduly aggressive. If you are going to question my motives (while trumpeting AGF, quelle hypocrisie), you should come to my talk page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andy was making an observation, not an accusation. Let's all please AGF. But all the more reason to close the discussion here and continue it in the appropriate forum. DougHill. Je suis Charlie. (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How can canvassing not be an accusation? Canvassing implies intention. I did not urge nor did I intend for people to come here to !vote for, or against, deletion. 'Forked' too has negative connotation. So no, I don't think Andy was commenting in good faith. Alakzi (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Regarding the use in External links sections: The addition of an interview of/talk by the subject with/at some journal/university is failing our general inclusion standards (an interview with a subject does not very often give much extra information beyond what is encyclopedic or necessary for understanding, and what extra information is needed generally can be part of the Wikipedia page itself) - there must be a very good reason to include an interview like that, and it certainly does not belong on many pages. Having a template for that is not appropriate. Many of these external links should be removed, and consensus on each specific case should be gained on the talkpage before (re-)inclusion - convince editors that the link is one of the exceptions, or they should be used (as intended) to draw information from that expands the document (and then converted to references, which generally makes re-linking it as an external link superfluous as well). For the template, it does not need a template for the few cases where the link is appropriate in the external links section, that can be 'written out'. Regarding the use in references: interviews with, or talks by a subject can be a perfectly valid primary source for something that a subject has said. Linking to such a video is then appropriate. We have many templates handling citations, and (some of) those can handle videos as well (note, if it is a specific statement, I would suggest that the citation is including the time when it was said in the video or when the relevant info is there). Also for that, a separate template is not needed, nor is this template appropriate for use in the references section (use a regular cite-template). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it stands this appears to be an unnecessary template used to link external links to videos from Prager University that could use existing templates. Now if this were a template that lists "lecturers" for Prager University, than I might change my vote. Also how is Template:TED different, they appear to function the same?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would there be an objection if the article was made into something similar to Template:Fox News personalities, where list of "lecturers" are provided?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would object. The difference in this respect between Prager U and Fox News is that Fox News is a significant aspect of its personalities' careers. I clicked on five random people in the Fox News infobox and every one had Fox News in their lead sections. I highly doubt Prager U belongs in the lead section for anyone, beyond possibly Dennis Prager himself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still no response on why this template is any different from the TED template. This question can be fielded by anyone.
Actually, come to think about it, since this is similar to the TED and CSPAN templates in purpose, I am changing my opinion to Keep. Granted it is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST reasoning, but I don't see how, at the very least the TED series of videos are different. Both are attempting to be educational, this is just right-of-center. Although Prager U might not be an actual accredited university, however it's purpose is the same as TEDs in that it is attempting to shine light on an idea on an issue in a video lecture format. Therefore, if this template is to be deleted in its present form, so should similar templates.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, am in favour of that - having a template seems to suggest that the links are somehow 'endorsed' (that is a reasoning that sometimes comes up with the use of the {{youtube}}, {{twitter}} templates - we have a template specifically to link YouTube links in external links sections, so YouTube links are good in the external links sections). However, the difference between PragerU and TED seems to be quite big - how many of these will end up in the end in external links sections (the ones used as references should simply be trans-templated to a proper cite-template), how many actually belong in external links sections (that is also true for TED!), and does that number qualify it to be templated, or just with a regular non-templated external link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note, {{TED}} has 7 transclusions, 2 as references (which should be transformed to a proper cite-template), 1 inappropriate (link to a talk by a person, likely because he talked about the subject described on the Wikipage - I think he is inventor/CEO/important in the field), 3 proper external links (some in quite a linkfarm, wondering what they add), and one link to media. That leads to 3-4 uses of the template, which IMHO does not qualify as needed to be templated. For {{C-SPAN}} the situation is different (it does not link to a specific video), and .. I would say that many of these are also inappropriate as external links (because it links to a linkfarm of videos, how to determine what is appropriate?) - It leads to a 'appearances on C-SPAN'-link, where I would question how useful that is directly to the subject: you have to search through the appearances to find information that is not already covered - if there is any? I looked at Mary Tyler Moore, and on first sight, only one talk is by her, I presume she attended (e.g. '2005 White House Correspondents' Dinner Arrivals') or was partly a subject in the others (e.g. 'News and Documentary Emmy Awards'). {{C-SPAN}} looks to me a typical example of the abovementioned {{Youube}}-argument: we have a template for it, so it is 'endorsed' and hence add the link where we can. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RightCowLeftCoast, I agree with you that your point is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST argument, and I agree with Beetstra that the TED and C-SPAN templates shouldn't exist. TED isn't useful and C-SPAN appearances are trivia. If we are to take your argument to its logical extension, we should have a template for every single media outlet (reliable or not) so that articles can externally link to all references to everyone. It should be obvious this is not how Wikipedia is intended to work. (And btw, Prager U is not an unaccredited university. It's a website. The "University" part of its name is pure marketing.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, the logical conclusion is that we should keep all mentioned, or this TfD should be bundled with TED and C-SPAN. Otherwise if it is not than this template should be kept as TED and C-SPAN are allowed to remain unchallenged. I await others to make their move.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I await others to make their move. This is not a chess match. Consensus is emerging to remove all ELs to Prager U. We're not gonna hold up on deleting a template that's outlived its purpose, 'cause other similar templates exist. Alakzi (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are you, Alakzi, removing all uses of the template before there is any resolution here? That seems like a chess move to me. Please discuss in one of these forums, or wait for a resolution here, before doing that again. The TED template is useful, just as PragerU would be if you hadn't deleted all its uses. But I must admit that if there is no case for the TED template, then there isn't one for PragerU either. DougHill. Je suis Charlie. (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the links 'cause of the general consensus at WP:ELN, irrespective of the use of this template. Alakzi (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What we're saying by this TfD, if it occurs, but the TfD for TED fails is, it is OK to censor Wikipedia from one form of (educational in its purpose) video lecture but not another. Thus, WP:NOTCENSOR applies to both, or neither. Either both Template should remain, or neither template remain.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prager University is not "educational in its purpose". NOTCENSOR is not applicable. We're not censoring content worthy of inclusion; we're censoring links that've no business being on Wikipedia. Let go of this false parallel. Alakzi (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely educational in its purpose. It is attempting to inform/education individuals of topics from a certain academic perspective, such as on the Laffer curve, presented from a professor from the University of California, Los Angeles.
It is an educational lecture. Regardless of whether a editor/reader agrees with its view point or not.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Blackboxwarning[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{Warning}}. Hardly used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support deletion: If same parameters, delete, if some additional ones, maybe merge in. Montanabw(talk) 06:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge This template is used to display a more visually prominent notice than the standard warning box. Useful solutions to this situation include retention of this template or addition of a HowImportantIsThisIssue parameter to the standard warning. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Escalating prominence of templates will only lead to banner blindness. Fulfills no role over {{Warning}}. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant and obnoxious. Alakzi (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox U.S. county[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox U.S. county (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox settlement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox U.S. county with Template:Infobox settlement.
I started making the US county template a wrapper for the standard settement infobox, in the former's sandbox, but there are just a few parameters missing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please use |type=infobox with {{Tfm}}. You're disrupting literally thousands of articles. 213.7.227.83 (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Pigsonthewing: I echo the IP's sentiments – please only visibly tag the template that you're actually trying to get rid of. You've tagged several highly used templates for merger recently, which has caused quite a lot of annoyance. Infobox settlement has well over 400,000 transclusions, and it's really not necessary to disrupt hundreds of thousands of articles for this. Thanks, Number 57 13:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is standard procedure, and is insisted on by some editors, who object to template mergers where it is not done. If you want to change it, please raise the matter at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion to see whether there is consensus to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's also "standard procedure" to use |type=infobox on infoboxes. I've pointed this out to you before. 213.7.227.83 (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Pigsonthewing: will you be using this parameter in the future? 213.7.227.83 (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • As soon as its available in WP:Twinkle. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please consider the possibility of that being disrespectful towards readers and editors who've expressed discontent. 213.7.227.83 (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • On this one, IP 213, I agree with Andy, he's sort of between a rock and a hard place here. Many of his previous noms have been opposed because the changes have not already been performed, yet if he tries to change the parameters before proposing a merge or move, he's criticized for that too. Let's now set up a no-win. Surely there is a need for technical improvements to most templates, including this one. Montanabw(talk) 00:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Hi Montana. I didn't mean the nominated templates' parameters. When TfD'ing a template, we tag it with {{Tfm}}, which has an option to display a condensed TfD notice for sidebars and infoboxes. See Template:Tfm#Sidebar. 213.7.227.83 (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: A county in the United States is not a "settlement" - a county may actually have many "settlements" - towns, cities, etc. If there is something technical going on her, then never mind, but counties are most certainly not settlements. Montanabw(talk) 06:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Montanabw: The documentation for {{Infobox settlement}} says "This template should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, etcetera - in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This documentation should be rewritten to; "This template may be used ..." Abductive (reasoning) 17:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do agree with that. For example, we also have {{US state}} and "only" 50 transclusions (presumably) but I would oppose merging that one into anything. My own view is that a "settlement" is a good default where city, state, county, etc don't fit, for example, the zillions of unincorporated communities or census-designated places such as ismay, Montana. Montanabw(talk) 00:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even with such rewording, my point would stand: {{Infobox settlement}} is suitable for use on articles about US counties, so, with the minor changes proposed, the US-specific template is redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until there's some detailed discussion of what "just a few parameters missing" includes. It would seem appropriate to provide that comparison without making everyone else do the research. It would also reduce misunderstandings about what the result would be. How much impact would the change have on the current sequence of items displayed in the County template? The test case samples I see at the sandbox seem far from complete; what am I missing?
    SBaker43 (talk) 10:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There should indeed be "detailed discussion" before the templates are merged; that's why I've posted this here, at Templates for discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that is a fair thing to say. I suspect here, the docmentation for the template is what needs work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 00:01, 2 January 2015‎
  • Oppose. I see no real similarities between the templates, nor between the concept of a settlement and a county. A settlement can have no legal recognition, but a county is all about legal definitions. Abductive (reasoning) 17:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on my simple mapping of County to Settlement, excluding metric parameters, I find less than half of the County parameters have an obvious (to me) matching parameter in Settlement. The proposer or a supporter needs to provide enough detail of a reasonable mapping to demonstrate that this proposal is viable.
      SBaker43 (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted above, the documentation for {{Infobox settlement}} says "This template should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, etcetera - in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think they need to change the documentation. A wrapper might be the way to go, but I'm not sure. While the template is comprehensive, "Settlement" is an illogical concept for a USA state or county - or any other nation with a federalist system. Our states and counties are not stand-alone "human settlements" - they are large expanses of land with a government overseeing them, and may contain within them "settlements" - especially in the American West, they may have few "settlements" at all - or a dozen!. A U.S. county could be one like Orange County, California, that isn't even one settlement - it encompasses part of a major metro area. Or, a county might be a place such as Carter County, Montana, population about 1000, where the cattle outnumber the people and the county seat is the tiny town of Ekalaka, Montana (pop about 300), which is virtually the only concentrated populated spot in a county that is three times the area of Luxembourg. In between are counties that contain several towns and even a small city, such as Larimer County, Colorado (8 incorporated communities, plus CDPs and many unincorporated communities). So, while I suppose the parameter mapping could be made to work, I have to say that this is the opposite of my usual "let's not Balkanize the templates" position - here I think US County could perhaps be a "wrapper" from the infobox, but I'd hate to see a pure merge and lose it altogether. JMO. Montanabw(talk) 03:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. My first sentiment was on semantic grounds, since counties aren't settlements, but I quickly remembered the bit about "this can be used for anything under a country". However, the current county infobox contains multiple pieces that wouldn't be helpful in a general context, and in some cases might actually be confusing. For example, if we move the |district= parameter to the settlement infobox, I can see it getting misunderstood and accidentally misused by someone who wants to indicate the slightly wider region in which the settlement's located. The parameters for the largest city only make sense for an entity that can have cities within it, and I don't think it would be helpful for infobox settlement to start implementing a parameter of this type. The time zone parameter works quite differently from the one in infobox settlement — it requires only "Eastern", "Central", etc., while the infobox settlement requires lots more details because it's meant for a worldwide context. We'd need to make lots of changes just to get the time zones to work properly. And the map, too, would be confusing: it automatically generates the map, which is not a feature of the infobox settlement. So all considered, I think that these infoboxes are too far apart for a merger to be possible under current circumstances, and I don't think it would be worth the effort to change everything in thousands of articles (especially because it would confuse tons of people who are familiar with the current setup) simply for the benefits of making these templates ready for merger. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be easy to provide code for the timezone and maps; perhaps initially by way of making the US template a wrapper. Not a single one of the articles using either template would need to be made in such case; but even if that were not so, we must not be painted into such a corner by past practices. The largest city is equally applicable to counties and the administrative divisions outside the US. The numbered |subdivision_type= parameters are available in the settlement infobox are suitable for congressional districts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said, it would indeed be possible to make these changes, but the amount of work would be unjustified by the benefits gained. Template merging is reasonable when it can be performed with little work, but when two templates have such significant differences, when one of them has lots of dedicated components not needed in the other, merger is a bad idea. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • "The amount of work" is never a reason not to merge templates. No-one is requiring you or any other individual to carry out the task; either someone will be willing to do it (which is usually the case, in due course) or it will remain not done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: No necessary to merge these. pbp 12:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but: add the missing parameters in the county infobox from the settlement one (such as nicknames and demonyms). Illegitimate Barrister 09:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I see no reason for merging the templates. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Another ill-conceived merge proposal, based upon little more than the perceived similarity of the subjects. The trend at TfD for the past several years has been to merge/consolidate smaller, simpler templates with similar subjects into larger, more complex, more comprehensive templates with multiple related subjects. What is often lost in these discussions is the concept of ease of use for particular intended purposes. What I have observed is when a complex, comprehensive, multi-purpose template includes 20, 25, 30, 40 or more parameters -- fewer than 10 or 15 of which should typically apply to any given use of the template -- the potential for the erroneous misuse/misapplication of the optional parameters increases significantly. In practice, this also contributes to overly long infoboxes, where many editors focus on filling out article infoboxes rather than contributing well-written prose. Infoboxes are intended to be at-a-glance summaries of core information; they were never intended to be comprehensive regurgitations of article subjects, nor a substitute for well-written text. It's time to have a philosophical discussion about whether bigger, longer, more comprehensive templates are always better. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This nomination is based on a thorough and systematic examination of the two template's overlapping parameters, conducted during the making of the draft wrapper, in a sandbox, as described above. The alleged and potential errors described may be mediated by providing selectively-populated blank templates, as done with the highly-used {{Infobox officeholder}}, into which a great many other templates were successfully merged without any drama (for example, see Template:Infobox_officeholder#Ambassador). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Andy, and Infobox officeholder is a perfect paradigm of any overly long, overly complex infobox template that offers too many options in an attempt to be all things to all editors for all subjects on all occasions. Instead of having several relatively simple, tailor-made infobox templates for politics, corporate/business, and academia, we now have an all-in-one infobox template that only a small handful of editors actually know how to use properly. And now you want to merge the infobox for university leaders into this same mess? Sorry, Andy, but just because you can merge two templates doesn't mean that you should merge two templates. We don't need complex monstrosities that only a select few editors can use. BTW, I think 3,027 United States counties are at least as distinct and deserving of a separate, simple, tailor-made and easy-to-use infobox template as 27 English counties (see Template:Infobox English county). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • We can indeed see what a mess {{Infobox officeholder}} is by all the calls for it to be split up, and the fact that no-one uses it. Well, apart from the 85,773 transclusions it currently has, that is, which mean your claims are mere FUD. Your UK-county straw-clutching is irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • My observations about complexity, ease of use, and length are perfectly valid, as borne out by the simple fact that not a single editor (other than yourself, of course) supports this particular proposed merge. At last count, the !votes are running about 10 to 1 against this proposal, and for perfectly valid reasons: simpler, shorter, better tailored templates are easier to use, less prone to erroneous implementation, and less prone to unchecked growth. As for "straw-clutching," your snarkiness and sarcasm are not valid arguments in favor of your proposal, and, as you are often fond of reciting, constitute a not-particularly subtle form of ad hominem attack against editors who oppose your TfD proposals. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not only have I never recited (nor indeed claimed) anything of the kind, but my straw clutching description applies to your facile arguments. And this is still, despite attempts to paint it otherwise, not a vote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ahem. For such an obviously erudite fellow, Andy, you do have a very selective memory: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. No, TfD is not a vote, but TfD outcomes are supposed to be based on the consensus of reasoned opinions, and that is self-evidently running against this proposal. And yet you still have not addressed the substance of my comment, to wit: shorter, simpler, and easier-to-use templates are often better than longer, more complex, harder-to-use templates that are prone to erroneous implementation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - U.S. counties and states are very different from the content and scope of the general "Infobox settlement" template. Only articles and templates with strikingly similar content and scope should be merged. Nosugarcoating (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As already noted above, the scope of {{infobox settlement}} includes "...administrative districts, counties, provinces, etcetera - in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". You may not like the idea of a merger, but please don't ignore the facts in an attempt to derail it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose My argument is rather simple. Counties are third level entities in which cities and settlements are located. And although there are around 20 exceptions to that rule, those being Consolidated City-Counties, that is out of over 3,100 counties, some of which are larger than some of the smallest states, like San Bernardino County, California, which is enormous and has over 100 different settlements.Rhatsa26X (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose To quote an old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The current infobox works fine, and is substantially different from the standard settlement infobox. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeNot only No, BUT HELL NO.....it might be easier to make the merge, but hardly accurate, no, no wayCoal town guy (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A settlement is to a county as a county is to a state. It's a different level of government, responsibilities, and properties. This should be reflected in separate infoboxes. Mamyles (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Divbegin[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete as redundant to other col templates or HTML. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

544 uses. Redundant with and replaceable by {{div col}} (63939 uses). Will need some cleanup as this template closes with a raw </div>.  Gadget850 talk 10:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reasonable proposition. Divbegin appears to be identical to earlier versions of div_col; whoever did the migration of the old div_col to the new div_col may have code lying around to do another ~550 updates..? John Vandenberg (chat) 06:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so John Vandenberg comes up for air finally! And here we thought he'd been abducted by aliens. Happy New Year! EEng (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too many column templates already. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • rewrite (or delete) template name has no indication this is only for columnarization, instead of some general div creation; if this template exists, it should be as a wrapper to the general HTML entity DIV, that does not define columns, but takes a "|style=" and "|class=" parameters -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be {{div}}. --  Gadget850 talk 07:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, {{div}} would contain all the content of the div section inside as a template parameter as well (such as |content= ) this would only provide the start of a div section. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Separating the start and end templates allows errors where one is transcluded properly, but the other is not. There are times where it could be useful, but in those few cases, I expect the div could just as well be written as html, instead. —PC-XT+ 08:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant per nom —PC-XT+ 07:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Frietjes (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_31&oldid=1138534521"