Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:39, 7 June 2015

June 7

Template:FC Dinamo Bender seasons

Template:FC Dinamo Bender seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:FC CSCA–Rapid seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:FC Viitorul Orhei seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:FC Nistru seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:FC Iskra-Stali seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:FC Sfîntul Gheorghe seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:FC Olimpia seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Academia UTM seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_30#Template:FC_Tiraspol_seasons. Templates which contains link to only one season. Not useful for navigation. XXN, 10:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:SM dot

Template:SM cross (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SM dot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SM empty (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SM head (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SM pic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SM smart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SM text (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused (except on Talk:Rockaway Park Shuttle); should be substituted/userfied. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

These templates are under construction. The planned usage is something like this or this. Vcohen (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Vcohen: Do the templates have any particular advantages over BSicons? Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. When I built them they had, but things change. I still am not sure that it is possible to create a map like this with BSicons. Vcohen (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox comedian awards

Template:Infobox comedian awards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A completely unnecessary template that creates unnecessary clutter and undue weight in infoboxes. It would be better to instead contain awards somebody has won within article prose, specifically in an "awards" or "achievements" section in biographical articles, a section which is commonly used. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete; I think it's totally fine. Reece Leonard (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep; it lists "major awards" perfectly and neatly. I haven't encountered "clutter" or "undue weight". Partyclams (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• What I meant is that it's an unnecessary filler for infoboxes since awards tend not to be things one is especially noted for compared to their career work and such. I've sometimes seen infoboxes become ridiculously loaded when awards are included. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete; awards are usually listed within article text. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 12:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep; Among the best infobox templates for concisely delivering the information I like to look for quickly. Perhaps I am not fully embracing the prose element of articles in this way, but I'm sure I won't be alone, and as I say, this template serves a useful purpose for readers like me. JamKaftan (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• The problem is that it provides no benefit that can't be done through article text and is WP:UNDUE weight. Also, see my above comments on how they're not the most defining trait of one's life. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• But precisely my point was that I and others sometimes want information quickly, and don't want to read through the text to get it. JamKaftan (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• A better quick way would be to click on the "awards"/"achievements"/"awards and nominations"/etc. section within article table of contents. It's better for balance. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep; Its supposed to be a general information for what awards the comedian has won. Dog Bark Man (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• See my above comments; it's WP:UNDUE weight and has no benefit that can't be done through article text. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep; The idea that major awards do not define a prominent entertainer's body of work is incorrect, in my opinion. It is extremely common when an entertainer is introduced for them to be introduced along with their previous awards. Actors on Broadway are billed as the "Tony Award winner ". Singers are introduced as the "Grammy Award winner ." This is very commonly seen within the industry, but also during many mainstream appearances of entertainers. I've also yet to see an example of the undue weight issue. BU Rob13 (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infestation navs

Template:Infestation navs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A subnavbox used in mainspace which links predominantly or entirely to items outside of mainspace, failing WP:SELFREFERENCE. This is a test case for Category:Medicine navigational box footer templates. Izno (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• As a note, if editors would like to be able to navigate among the templates more effectively, then I would be happy to accept removing these from mainspace-facing templates and subsequent inclusion on only template-space pages. This does not appear to be their intent, however.

  Suitable replacements for these items would include perhaps a few index pages. --Izno (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• As you almost definitely know there are users actively working on these, Izno, by virtue of having checked the talk page, it wouldn't hurt to at least notify them of this discussion (that's WP:TFD step 3: "Notify users"). --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

  Update: I have notified the talk page, WP Anatomy and WP Med. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

  Assume good faith. --Izno (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Next can I point out that this does not "fail" WP:SELFREFERENCE, which merely states that such templates are "not encouraged". In full, "When forced to use templates like this, you should use them in a way such that the article still makes sense when the template is removed, in order to facilitate automated removal." This is exactly what we've done, ie provide links in a way that can be easily and automatically removed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• The real question is, does this help users? Which I would say myself and the other editors agree yes, it does. How? Well, when a reader searches for medical or anatomical information, readers often want to know about related articles. However there is simply far too much to include and by linking to relevant templates we can help users access the entire set. Medical templates occur in sets that have been linked since at least 2009 and no problem has arisen since then. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• I'll provide three examples of how this can be useful:
  1. A person is diagnosed with heart disease and wants to know more about treatment and relevant anatomy. The subnavs provide easy links.
  2. A student has an exam on the nervous system. The subnav provides links to all the relevant anatomical templates for the said area.
  3. A lay reader wants to know about what bones we have in our body, but don't know their names. The templates provide easy links to said bone by body part.
• These templates significantly help readers and so I vote keep. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

  Let me attempt to pick this apart piece by piece.

  • I'm less concerned about the specific wording of SELFREF and more concerned with the fact that these templates should provide readers' with a stable, main-space reading environment, avoiding the self-reference of the non-mainspace namespaces. We're linking to template pages, which are not article content and thus fail this point of SELFREF.
  • Does this help usersreaders (we are not providing templates for you or I, correct?)? I think so. Or at least, I think the idea that these navboxes should be setup to facilitate jumping to related articles would be helpful for the readers (which is the point of a reader-facing navbox per WP:NAVBOX). However, the conclusion ("we should link to templates") does not follow from the premise ("we need to help the readers"), and especially, the conclusion does not follow from the second premise, which is that the topic-space/navboxes are organized badly. This concept is the real issue you are trying to take care of, for which the appropriate solution is actually (per SELFREF) a set of list pages linked. (The third premise, which you declined to considerm is that keeping the reader in mainspace when he expects to remain in mainspace, as with nearly every navbox, is an important one.) To take your third example, I would expect List of bones in the human body to be linked, not a template. And so it is, in Template:Bones of skeleton. The "subtemplates" in this topic area are used in the appropriate articles and so on this point their linkage in the "Bones nav" template is duplicating the point of the more general Bones of skeleton template. A user interested in the humorous will click to that article, and from there can navigate at will by scrolling to the bottom of the page.

  --Izno (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per Tom. Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment the linked templates are reader content navigation templates though ; and you can always convert this to a doc page nav template. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• keep --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• Keep I do not see WP:SELFREFERENCE as sufficient justification to delete. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I wanted to see what the problem was, so I had a look at an article that contained this template, Flatworm. I expanded the bottom navbar (labelled "Infectious diseases Parasitic disease: helminthiases B65–B83 120–129"). The section at the bottom of that is this template, so I tried one of the links (Worms in the first row), hoping to see further information. That link took me to a template - which is unusual, but not catastrophic - however, I soon realised that the template I was now looking at was the one labelled "Infectious diseases Parasitic disease: helminthiases B65–B83 120–129" - in other words, the one I had just left on the Flatworm article. Is that how this template is supposed to work? --RexxS (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, that is the intent of how these templates are supposed to work. They could potentially have The Common Reader bouncing around in the template space, forever. (Please take the emphasis as humor.) --Izno (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

  Yes that is, RexxS. The list of templates is labelled "Index of..." and provided in a separate lighter colour. I expect most users of wikipedia (ie. readers) will be able to work this system out. I think it is disingenous to imply that users will be stuck in 'template land' forever. On the other hand, a user may be forever stuck in a cycle of wikilinks getting to the bottom of a particular topic if we remove these template links, as there is no other systematic way that links are presented for an entire topic. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

  If you are making a point about the titling of templates ("Infectious diseases Parasitic disease: helminthiases B65–B83 120–129") I completely agree. All anatomy templates have been retitled and simplified but not yet the med ones. The med template batch will start by moving the numbers to Wikidata. Unfortunately that's stuck in botland on Wikidata. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep I don't think that this fails SELFREF at all. The section on templates refers specifically to stub templates as an example of a self-reference. {{Med-stub}}, which says "This medical article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it" is a self-reference: it tells readers something about the unsatisfactory state of the article, and invites them to edit. A list of articles that happens to be in a different namespace is not a self-reference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

  Let me clarify a part of my rationale: it is bad UX design if not self-referential to portray a link from the mainspace to the template space as if it were a mainspace link. It's fundamentally disingenuous to the reader both in the general case (presenting a link to the template space as a mainspace item) and in the specific case of these templates (presenting these links as "indices" in navigational boxes which are meant to link primarily or predominantly to the mainspace). --Izno (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems unnecessary to give each link as template:example, in a nav box where space is short. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep This provides an excellent navigation tool for the reader. Thincat (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Its really strange (in a Misplaced Pages way) that a link called Acari links to a template and not the article Acari, and the same for the rest of all templates. If theese templates makes their own "article space" in template space, they should have references or be deleted (like other list articles). Christian75 (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)