Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:18, 12 April 2018

April 4

Template:Insular Areas TV

• Template:Insular Areas TV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is inaccurate; Palau, Marshall Islands, and FS Micronesia are all independent sovereign states and are not US territories, despite the respective Compacts of Free Association. That leaves us with the Northern Mariana Islands, which don't have enough bluelinked TV stations to justify a navbox. Lojbanist 23:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Db-x1

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 and mark as historical. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Template:Db-x1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No templates for the other no-longer-in-use criteria that weren't merged into broader criteria exist ({{db-t1}} and {{db-u4}} are both redlinks), so I see no reason for this one to. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. No harm in keeping this and there might be hundreds of pages in which this template appears in the history, so keeping the template will allow users to see what the page was tagged for. Regards SoWhy 17:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - tagging as historical is sufficient. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - T1 and U4 aren't great examples, as the former wasn't perfectly folded in and the latter was just outright revoked and thus was harmful to keep. This was a specific case that stretched over years, and it isn't actually all the easy to discover what was actually going on with Neelix. Keeping some level of historicity on this, perhaps with a helpful category on transclusion, would be quite reasonable. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per historically significance. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• Keep as historical. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• Keep as having historical value (and, for that matter, the same treatment should be applied to {{db-t1}} and {{db-u4}}). ToThAc (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:LGBT films list lead

• Template:LGBT films list lead (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates should not be used to store article text — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment (template creator): The relevant guideline is in Misplaced Pages:Template namespace § guidelines: Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content (emphasis mine). All of the affected text was (and were previously) identical aside from the year, so the template doesn't change the article text, and standardizes the phrasing of the leads. I think this raises two questions:

1. Should the lead text be basically identical across the List of LGBT-related films by year lists?
2. And if basically identical text is deemed acceptable, is template use justified?

For question 1, I am uncertain, and have already raised this concern at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style § Boilerplate leads in lists. For question 2, if identical lead phrasing across articles is deemed acceptable, the templates are meant to standardize the text.

If this deletion discussion is in favor of removing the lead templates, do not remove them by undoing each of the edits, as a few of the edits fixed some erronious text. Instead, I can quickly remove them in a semi-automated way by changing each template to {{subst:LGBT films list lead}}. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 05:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Subst (neutral on deletion versus keeping as subst-only) as more unnecessary use of templates for article text. I was going to suggest LST-ifying, but that doesn't work when the template takes parameters, forcing a simple substitution and duplication. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep (Template creator): After reviewing the history of that guideline, I continue to think this template should be kept. The template is an extrapolation of all the leads being functionally identical. I don't find the triviality of the different years, which prevents LST, as a convincing argument for preventing template transclusion. I think the template should be kept unless the specific list have custom phrasing (I gave a potential example above in the collapsed part); I see no reason for allowing divergence in the criteria or grammer to occur within individual list articles. However, I recognize that I am biased in favor of my own template. Because I want to understand the general consensus on this issue, I have notified those who participated in the most recent discussion on the scope of templates at Misplaced Pages talk:Template namespace. @Pppery: you are welcome to reply to this comment. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 20:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - This is a misuse of the template namespace to store what amounts to an extremely narrow bit of article text. If editors wish to keep this text consistent, it should be done in other ways. This use sets a bad precedent for other lists which group topics by year. In theory, the slippery slope could extend not only to list leads but other parts of the page as well. SUBST it. Kill it. With fire. -- Netoholic @ 20:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Netoholic: Just a note on your "If editors wish to keep this text consistent, it should be done in other ways" comment, this is the most viable on-wiki way to maintain this. I suppose a bot task could check the article text across articles and report on it, but it would be more difficult to maintain, and overall ensure less consistency. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 21:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

You're attempting to use a template to make one particular line of text conform across several article. I think you need to remember that this is a wiki. If people change the line on one particular list, then maybe its a reasonable change. You should not be putting barriers up. -- Netoholic @ 09:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Netoholic: I have no problem with the text being changed; this is a wiki after all. What I do see as problematic is non-specific changes to a particular list, i.e. unrelated to the list's year or decade, because these changes should be treated as proposed changes to the set of lists' criteria. Currently, the lead text reads "This is a list of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender-related films released in year or decade. It contains theatrically released films that deal with important gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as a plot device." If someone wanted to, for example, remove the word "important", it wouldn't make sense for that one individual article's criteria to be inconsistent with every other article.

Regarding the argument that "You should not be putting barriers up.", this "barrier"'s purpose is to ensure list criteria consistency across as set of related pages, as I elaborated in the previous paragraph. It does make it more difficult to edit the content, but no one has proposed individualized phrasing for the leads. Even a new editor could likely figure out the basics of template transclusion by trial-and-error. They may not be able to edit the template text, but they could probably figure out to delete and replace the template transclusion for an individualized phrasing, and that could be evaluated as appropriate. There are plenty of other things new editors cannot edit if they don't understand template transclusion like navboxes and sidebar formatting; unless you have an individualized format to recommend for the list leads, I am of the opinion they should be in templates for cross-article consistency. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 16:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep I don't have a problem with templates being used for consistency of (small) amounts of article content in this manner; I don't feel that it contravenes the principle of the guidelines. I'm not convinced that the text needs to be identical and invariant between lists in this manner, but I don't have a problem with it being the case so long as further context could be added — for example (with ‡‡ added here to make the divide between the template text and the additional context more obvious for this discussion):

This is a list of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender-related films released in year or decade. It contains theatrically released films that deal with important gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as a plot device. ‡‡ Year or decade was notable in LGBT+ culture because event meant that cultural consequences and Some Film became the first film to depict something or other. At the same time, another event had seemingly unrelated consequence, which led to some other thing that impacted the LGBT+ community in some other more-direct manner.

In nearly 14 years of editing Wikipedias, I had never heard of labelled section transclusion; I'm not sure that's as editor-friendly, particularly for people using VisualEditor and I don't have objections to both technologies (Templates and LST) being used in different places. Certainly LST feels like a much greater barrier than template transclusion, which is handled pretty elegantly in VisualEditor. I don't personally feel that the distinction between article content being in template space is quite so black-and-white as some editors believe. — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@OwenBlacker: Interesting use of the ‡. Presumably it would not be formatted in red text if it was included in the article? I've never seen ‡ used in that way, could you provide an example where it is? If separation is desirable, I think a simple paragraph break would suffice for separating the boilerplate criteria text from the more specific significance. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 18:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@E to the Pi times i: Sorry, I was only using the daggers to make it clear in this discussion where that division was. I was not intending that the division would be highlighted in articles. I've edited my comment above to make that clearer. — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: This template is used in multiple articles to ease navigation. -Mardus /talk 14:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

  This template has nothing to do with navigation. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mardus: I have to agree. You may want to revise your comment to clarify it, or remove the support if you no longer agree with it after further evaluation. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 00:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:ScreenActorsGuildAward CastMotionPicture

• Template:ScreenActorsGuildAward CastMotionPicture (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:ScreenActorsGuildAward CastMotionPicture 1995–2000 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:ScreenActorsGuildAward CastMotionPicture 2001–2010 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:ScreenActorsGuildAward CastMotionPicture 2011–2020 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:ScreenActorsGuildAward CastMotionPicture 1995–2000 with Template:ScreenActorsGuildAward CastMotionPicture.
Naboxes with ensemble casts like this do not perform a useful navigational function. I don't really think that anyone would want to navigate between the individuals in the navbox in this manner. This kind of information belongs in an article, not a navbox. Per discussion at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 16#Template:Satellite Award for Best Cast – Motion Picture, there seems to be some consensus for including the films, but not the individuals. Therefore, I propose the navboxes are merged and the individuals removed. --woodensuperman 12:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Philafrenzy, MarnetteD, Randy Kryn, TonyTheTiger, and Primefac: Pinging all contributors to the previous discussion. --woodensuperman 13:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Merge just the films. The film articles would be a quick one-stop link to the casts. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• Merge the templates and remove the actors per both the recent TFD regarding the Satellite awards and the consensus here Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 19#Category:Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Drama Series Screen Actors Guild Award winners. MarnetteD|Talk 14:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Keep as is On the one hand, I like to use the links to the actors in the articles. On the other hand, this is not much different from listing actors in templates for individual films. I would prefer to WP:PRESERVE the content in the templates, but can see the arguments on the other side. I think for the Primetime Emmys, The Golden Globes and the SAG award Cast templates, the information is more notable/important than for the subject of the prior discussion and I think it might be worth keeping in those cases.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep SAG Ensemble is a major win for an actor/actress. Satellite's ensemble award is minor and can't compare.--charge2charge (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Phonemetra

• Template:Phonemetra (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Does appear to be needed given the lack of working links Plastikspork _―Œ 20:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Administrative law in the People's Republic of China

• Template:Administrative law in the People's Republic of China (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused with no links Störm (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Uh, it's used on Administrative law in the People's Republic of China, from whence it was originally derived. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as a needless fork of content from the article into a template. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Inclined to a delete rather than a subst. The content is already in prose in the same section and I don't see great value in repeating that in a box on the right. --Izno (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)