Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 14 March 16 >

March 15[edit]

Template:2017 American Southwest Conference football standings[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused standing template. There is no parent article for it anyway. 2017 American Southwest Conference football Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:34, 15 March 2019 (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:2017 CCIW football standings[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused standing template. There is no parent article for the season 2017 CCIW football standings. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:33, 15 March 2019 (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:EB Games Expo 2015[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused event map. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, now that it is used on the EB Games Expo article. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PhilipTerryGraham. Now in use. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per convincing rationale of Nyttend below. Why does this need a template or even an image; in what respect is this notable or helpful to readers? --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I don't envision the nominator nominating it in the present situation. Nyttend (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nyttend, Tom (LT), PhilipTerryGraham ok so now it is used in ONE article... why does it need a separate template? Just substitute it into the article... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a completely different reason. The article covers an annual convention, and this template consists of a floor plan of the various event stations at one specific year's convention. How is this possibly encyclopedic? If we had an article about the professional conference I attended last week, would it help if I created and uploaded a diagram of the vendor area layout, so you could see where conferees could find booths for Kanopy, the Company of Biologists, Credo Reference, and Oxford University Press? No: it demonstrates literally nothing useful for those who were not at the conference. Same here; maybe you could find a third-party source saying that the convention allocated space to Activision, Bandi Namco, Bethesda, EA, EB Games, etc., but even if it's encyclopedic to list all the participants (I'm leaning against that idea), it's altogether useless to provide a map. Nyttend (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nyttend, VERY well said! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (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:Jeb Bush series[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More of an unnecessary template that just clutters the page than a template with substantial information. Also only links to Jeb Bush and Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2019 (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).

CIS football top10[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete. Each template is only used exactly once and is unlikely to be used on any future pages. The templates are just tables so there's no reason for them not to be moved to article space. BLAIXX 20:48, 15 March 2019 (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:Infobox Finnish municipality/population count[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was keep. No prejudice against renomination if and when the data is available elsewhere ("keep until replacement"). (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Storing data in a template like this creates a number of problems.

1) Ease of access What this means is that if a user wants to update the information (say for example the population), rather than editing the page, just like every other article on Wikipedia, they have to track down the sub template that is being called and then understand how the switch statement works and find the right value to change. For those of us experience with template editing, this is no problem. But Wikipedia is meant to be open for anyone to use. Storing data in this way just makes it more difficult to update.

2) Outdated references with invalid dates If right now I update the value of Imatra's population, I have to update it on {{Infobox Finnish municipality/population count}}. First, lets assume I am using the same reference as the one that is provided. Well now my access date needs to be updated to today's date. But I'm only updating one value... If I change the reference, I am saying that ALL the values are current as of today's date. But that isn't the case, I'm only updating one value. Furthermore, what if I'm using a different source? I am locked in to using the same source as every other value on the page because that is the source that is being returned by the template.

3) Dangerous precedent Additionally this sets a dangerous precedent. Should we next create a {{Chembox/boiling point}} that contains a massive switch statement with the boiling point of every chemical? Or {{Infobox NFL team/coach}} with a switch statement containing the current coach of every NFL team? That isn't how this works. If you want to change the data, you change it on the article in question.

4) Performance issues With the current implementation of 20 different subtemplates, that means that any time one of these articles loads, it has to parse 20 different switch statements. In somecases, because of the way the error handing is written, the switch statements are parsed multiple times. All to return plaintext numbers or references that can and should be included directly on the page.

The only reason I have heard for keeping these templates is that it makes it easier to update. Well that is just false. It may make it easier to BULK update, but how often are you updating EVERY value in one go? Rarely... And if it needs to be done, WP:BOTs are your answer for bulk updating pages. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems to me that a RfC needs to be had on the general validity of templates used to store data, rather than forking that discussion across multiple TfD noms in which there is no functional difference. Nevertheless, my position has not changed on this matter, so delete. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pppery, no objection from me on opening such an RFC. I'd be happy to help if that is a route you wish to go. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The population information of municipalities of Finland is published monthly by Statistics Finland. The information is based on the data in the Finnish Population Information System (Wikidata:Q18694404) maintained by the Population Register Centre. This is pretty much the only (reliable) source for the municipal population information in Finland; you do not need to gather that information from different sources. (And you should not to because the other sources would probably be less reliable.) Moreove, there are no census forms to be filled every x years, nor do the municipalities or any other local authorities conduct their own censuses. (See also Population and housing censuses by country#Finland.) Land survey data (area) is provided by the National Land Survey of Finland in a similar manner. So for each and every municipality the data is published at the same time by a single source, and thus the source of the information for the given date is always the same.
If you look at the 10-year history of {{Infobox Finnish municipality/population count}} you will notice that the information has been updated quite frequently, and usually all values have been updated at once. (There may be few exceptions.) That is because that is the easiest way to do it: just fetch the Excel sheet (also other formats available) from Statistics Finland, modify it a bit (a script/bot could be written for this step) and publish it. I just did that a few hours ago and it took me about 30 minutes, and I was just using LibreOffice to open the Excel sheet and plain text editor to modify it. With a script it would probably have been something like two minutes.
Even though updating a single value of a single municipality is indeed somewhat more difficult (or not possible at all with accurate date and source information) with the template than it is to update individual articles, I do not see that as a problem because there is hardly ever any need to update single values: If the information provided by the template is up-to-date for one municipality, it is up-to-date for all. If it is not, it is almost as easy to update all values at once as it is to update a single value.
Performance may be an issue sometimes, I agree on that one. But have there been any actual performance issues or is that just theoretical speculation?
Your reference to boiling points is not valid because that information never changes, so none of my arguments apply to it. And no NFL team probably hires a new coach monthly or even yearly, so that is a bit far-fetched example, too. However, I do agree that this case could be used as a precedent for having a template for some ever-changing numerical data, but is that really a bad thing? Otherwise the Internet is going towards automation of this kind of things, why should Wikipedia go to the opposite direction?
Please correct me if wrong but I think we all agree that one goal of Wikipedia is to provide reliable, accurate and up-to-date information to its readers. Making updating easier is just a tool to reach that goal.
These templates have provided accurate and up-to-date data for more than ten years now and I have not heard any complaints until now. So, I do not see any point going back to time when the data lagged years behind and the only way to fix that was endless manual and error-prone editing of simple numerical values.
At last, I think this kind of structured data should be provided by Wikidata. I.e. I am happy to get rid of these templates once this information actually is fetched from Wikidata. (Or if Wikidata cannot yet provide that information, I am fine with a bot, too, provided that there actually is one.) However, I do not think that "do the dull work of manually updating Halsua, Luhanka and Ähtäri separately every time their population data lags two years behind" or "Someone may implement a Wikidata integration or a bot some day in the future." are decent replacements for these templates. ––Apalsola t • c 23:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC) –– (minor fix) Apalsola t • c 23:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC) –– (one word added) Apalsola t • c 23:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apalsola, thanks for the well thought out response. For the record, I wasn't trying to be a pain in the ass with my NFL/Boiling point examples. Those were just the best I could come up with. You make excellent points. Boiling points don't change often, nor do NFL coaches. To that end, let me ask, what say you to things like {{Infobox Finnish municipality/land area}} I don't see that being updated all that often (seems more like my NFL coaches example?). Now with {{Infobox Finnish municipality/population count}} I totally get where you are coming from. I take a different stance on it, but I can at least understand where you are coming from! But with something like land area, total area, etc. Why the need to update those constantly. I would think those would be pretty darn static. Would you agree that at least those ones could be deleted? Might I suggest that there is a middle ground here?
I confess you almost have me convinced that {{Infobox Finnish municipality/population count}} should be kept. The fact that Finland issues new counts every year... At least for now that template might be the best way to do it. But, might I be able to convince you that some of these like {{Infobox Finnish municipality/native language Sami}} & {{Infobox Finnish municipality/native language total}} (both with no values changed since 2009) could be deleted and their values subst directly into the articles? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The National Land Survey of Finland publishes area data every year. As you can see from the data of 2018 and 2019 (in Finnish and Swedish but you probably get the idea), the information does actually change a bit. The main reason is probably post-glacial rebound ("new land" is risen from the sea which affects to the proportion of the land and sea for coastal municipalities) but the municipal borders are also adjusted sometimes. The language information is also published annually by Statistics Finland and it is based on the same data as the population data. ––Apalsola t • c 22:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until replacement we should deprecate custom data templates and switch to use Wikidata as a backend. However until then the centralized place for updates is better than manual editing the every page. Also if nobody didn't notice the subtemplates aren't used only in infobox but in article text too as dynamic values so deleting the templates will add manual updating work in article text too. About the speed issue: Based on quick testing using the template "Infobox Finnish municipality" adds 20%-25% overhead over plain "Infobox settlement" and the difference in render speed is <0.1s. However the test was done using preview with multiple times and then numbers were checked from the parser profiling data. In real life cases the rendered subtemplates are cached so the effect is pretty much none most of the times. Also if the speed would be the issue then optimizing (=convert it to Lua) the infobox settlement would be the better place to do it as it is the slowest part in this discussion and not the wrapper templates which are used in limited number of the articles. --Zache (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2019 (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).

Jamaican RDT Templates[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. The first has been replaced by {{Railway-routemap|JAM}}; the second is a fork of the deprecated {{BS-header}}. Useddenim (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2019 (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:2019 Faroe Islands Premier League table[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

single-use table, which should be placed directly in the article per this discussion at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Since 2015 the league tables of Faroe Islands Premier League seasons are made using a template. What's the problem this year? Davidsousa1 (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:45, 18 March 2019 (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:Tamsalu Parish[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was redirect to Template:Tapa Parish. This is mostly for attribution purposes, as the content from {{Tamsalu Parish}} was copied to {{Tapa Parish}} with this edit. Primefac (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and consider adding to more articles. There is a parent article: Tamsalu Parish, and the template isn't unused anymore. – Uanfala (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks to Gonnym for pointing out the parish has now been merged. The larger parish has its dedicated navbox, so this one appears largely redundant. It can be used on the Tamsalu Parish article itself, but that article already contains the same content in list form, so the navbox could probably be deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2019 (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).

Unused British Columbia provincial election 2013 templates[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Withdrawn as at least some of these are now in use. No prejudice against re-nominating any of them if they are still unused. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of these templates are unused and the associated data has already been placed in the article (2013 British Columbia general election) in a much clearer format. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The point of these templates is not and never has been for the main overview article about the election itself, where the results are indeed much better presented in a table format. The actual purpose, rather, is for the "electoral history" section of each individual district's article (see e.g. Kelowna West) and the "electoral record" section of each MLAs biography (see e.g. Ben Stewart). Those results tables are supposed to be formatted in templatespace just like this, so that those two articles crosslink each other and their results data can't be edited in contradictory ways that diverge from each other, so these are entirely normal. The real problem here isn't that these templates are useless — it's that for some weird reason, this set hasn't actually been applied to the articles, and instead the pages these templates are supposed to be on are currently hardcoding their 2013 results tables in-page instead of actually calling these templates. This can easily be corrected by actually replacing the hardcoded tables with this template, so these should be kept and actually applied — note, as well, that some of their sibling templates in Category:2013 British Columbia general election results by riding are already being used correctly, so literally the only problem here is that the person who created them didn't actually finish the job of applying all of them in the places they were meant to be used. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bearcat, So subst them directly into the articles. Why is there a template for something that is never going to change? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, because if somebody changes the information in one place but not in the other, then the articles will diverge — and they will do so, in all likelihood, without us noticing that there's a divergence. It has to be completely impossible for the MLA's article and the district's article to ever feature so much as a comma of difference in how they present the relevant election results, and the only way we can ensure that need is met is to crosslink the results via one template rather than two separate substitutions of hard coding, so that there's never even the slightest possibility of the respective articles ever contradicting each other at all.
    And even more importantly, election results are very routinely presented via templates in many, many political jurisdictions — see Category:Election and referendum result templates if you don't believe me. There's no valid reason to single this set out as a unique case that's different from the standard way of presenting election results everywhere else. The "static information" argument that was raised below is not relevant here, either — there's no established consensus that templates can't be used to present "static" information, because that argument wasn't even the winning consensus-maker there let alone ever having had a consensus line up behind it anywhere else, and outdated sports team rosters aren't an equivalent situation to electon results anyway. Bearcat (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Bearcat's statement. These templates should be hooked into the articles for the politicians whose names are in them, a process that I can help with this weekend. PKT(alk) 17:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I have completed the process of updating all of the templates and connecting them to the articles for their respective ridings and MLAs. @Zackmann08:, thank you for bringing these templates to our attention - they obviously should not have been left the way they were. PKT(alk) 16:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept based on Bearcat's argument, these should be placed in the holding cell (To review) so what was proposed can be tracked like any other TfD result. --Gonnym (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is now 12 days old. I recommend this be closed as Keep, now that all of the templates are now in use as they were meant to be. PKT(alk) 00:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This sort of template is not allowed in the template namespace per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 November 7#Template:TPO2013riders. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pppery, not disagreeing with you, but I'm curious what specific precedent are you establishing with that TFD? Single use? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zackmann08: Templates are not used when the information has no possibility of being changed (paraphrasing Primefac, The [results of the 2013 election] are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pppery, Oh lord, if only we could codify that... User:Zackmann08/unused election templates is just UNUSED election templates... lord knows how many single use ones there are... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zackmann08: ... and that argument is so good it applies even to election templates with more than one use. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pppery, to be clear, I 100% agree with you! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a statement of Primefac's opinion, not an established Wikipedia consensus. In actual fact, that's exactly the opposite of the standard consensus around use of templates: we use templates for static sets (or sets that change only slightly, such as "winners of notable award" templates that have a new winner added once a year but never have old winners disappear off of them under any circumstances) all the time, with "rapidly fluctuating sets" being exactly where we don't use templates. The consensus around use of templates hinges on whether there's value in permanently crosslinking related topics to each other (e.g. a set that once a person has become a part of, they will always remain a part of permanently, or a situation where we need to avoid the possibility of related articles being edited in a contradictory manner), not on whether the set represented by the template is "static" or "fluctuating". Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bearcat, so are you saying that these unused template should be kept or.... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you miss the memo? They ain't unused no more. Got pointed out right in this very discussion, even. Bearcat (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bearcat, gotta own my mistakes. TBH, yes I did miss the memo... :-p Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2019 (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:Trademark-EU[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Intellectual property laws of the European Union. Primefac (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with mostly red links Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge blue links to {{Intellectual property laws of the European Union}}. I was about to start de-orphaning this template, since it's a reasonable topic with a good number of blue links, but apparently the reason it's not used is that the other template serves the same purpose, even though it's all IP rather than just trade mark. Nyttend (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:18, 15 March 2019 (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:Don't subst[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2019 April 3. Primefac (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2019 (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:Anti-government protests in the 21st century[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was rename to Template:Political protests in the 21st century per consensus in the discussion. Future name changes (if necessary) should be done via talk page discussion and/or the RM process. No prejudice against renomination if there are continuing concerns about content, size, etc (though if it's just a case of trimming I suggest discussing on the talk page first). Primefac (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This template is a POV and Original research quagmire. For an editor to list a demonstration here, they have to judge the protest as "anti-government" and when they make such a judgment it will almost always be wrong. Almost all protests are trying to lobby their government for different policies. That's just part of the political process, not "anti government". Even Arab Spring, when the peoples of the Middle East topped many a dictator or monarch, they weren't "anti-government" as much as they were promoting different government. The only truly "anti-government" protests - if indeed there have been any notable ones - would have to have been held by anarchists, to be called "anti government". That's not what we have here. My first random clicking among the listed protests turned up 2010 student protest in Dublin, which merely wanted the existing government to do something different with the cost of education. There might be a case for renaming the template for simply "large" or "notable" protests, but its all so subjective the very nature of such a list is dubious, and its usefulness is highly suspect. Delete (later... or rename, see below NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC) updated NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would proceed with caution and not rush to judgment based on a single bad egg that can be removed; this seems like an interesting list for readers / researchers. I don't doubt it could be better. Have you done further research since 15 March to see if there are a significant number of bad eggs? For now, I would oppose deletion without further demonstration the template was predominantly OR/POV. It would seem "simpler" just to fix it, no? (e.g. §§) ~ SashiRolls t · c 00:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've already looked at several, and they were all protesting policies, to ask the government to do something different. That's a form of petition, not anarchy. All these problems go away with a name change to political protests in the 21st century. That does not depend on Wiki-editor opinion or judgment to classify their intent or demeanor, just the fact that they were a political protest, period. I have my doubts about how useful such a list would be, because there are an awful lot of political protests. But that name change would solve the immediate judgmental/POV/OR problem and we could then size up the result. Also, its possible this is a redundancy or subset with Template:Infobox civil conflict and its associated category, but i"m in over my head trying to figure this area of wikipedia out. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, a name change would be great. I was confused when the real template name popped up (because of this nomination) as it appears just as "Protests in the 21st century" in mainspace once transcludoed. I support renaming it as you suggest or cleaning it up, I guess, though that would be more time-consuming. ^^ SashiRolls t · c 01:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The title in the box was originally "Anti government protests...." but in this edit was changed just to "protests". Note the edit summary bassically says what I just said... these are notable protests but not necessarily "anti government". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also support to rename the template, since the edit that NewsAndEventsGuy mention the using of the template changed too, and I think that made it more useful despite of it haven't related with the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2x2leax (talk • contribs) 19:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per News, Sashi and 2x2. "Political protests" is a better label than "anti-government". "Protests in the 21st century" might be OK, too, I'm just not sure if there are non-political protests. In my opinion most "social" causes are actually political causes, so I don't know if there's a meaningful distinction here. But either way, the name should change from "anti-government" per nom. Leviv ich 14:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_15&oldid=890703292"