Misplaced Pages

:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 22 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Plastikspork (talk | contribs) at 01:12, 30 April 2010 (→Template:Font red: Closed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:12, 30 April 2010 by Plastikspork (talk | contribs) (→Template:Font red: Closed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< April 21 April 23 >

April 22

Template:Dylan under construction

Template:Dylan under construction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant of {{underconstruction}} —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

*Keep per other very recent TfD. Possibly a Speedy Keep, in fact per WP:CSK 2.3, though the argument here isn't identical to that there --Jubilee♫clipman 23:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand everyone's points. Although my keep still stands, I would not oppose its deletion. It certainly wasn't meant as an advertisement; would switching it to a talk page template be acceptable? - I.M.S. (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Not sure how that would help: a) it still would advertise the project and b) it would seem to imply that the talkpage is under construction... --Jubilee♫clipman 01:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:DLR

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

Template is redundant to Template:Disneyland Resort TorriTorri 18:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ 21:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Languages of Cape Verde

Template:Languages of Cape Verde (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I see little (if any) point on this template. It has only four links on it, two of them below the title. Victão Lopes 21:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Font red

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 01:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Font red (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is not used. The usage of this template is doubted as the html tag is not difficult to use directly. Quest for Truth (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2010 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:FL

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

Only use in a template message list, no longer used and redundant to {{ArticleHistory}}, which fits the purposes much better than having thousands of different templates for article milestones. The Evil IP address (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox classical composer

Template:Infobox classical composer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant fork of {{Infobox musical artist}}, created in an apparent attempt to prevent the use of certain parameters of the latter; as can be seen here, and of other templates, as here. New parameters, such as |era=, should be added to the older template, which should perhaps also have a classical_composer option for its non-displaying |background= parameter (there is already a corresponding classical_ensemble option). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

  • (Speedy) keep See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    Under what SK criteria? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    True, there is no relevant speedy keep criterion. However considering this comes off the back off an RfC I would support the call for a procedural close which is what Michael may have meant. This discussion could never cover the topic in as much detail as the RfC which, I note, the nominator did not even participate in. Opening this new discussion so soon, seems like an attempt to circumvent the conclusion over there. It is disrepectful, to say the least, of the huge amount of work by many editors that went into building a compromise. So to conclude, I vote for procedural keep and also trout whack nominator. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
    Where in that RfC was it decided that this template was to replace instances of other, more fully-featured templates? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
    Several editors expressed their view that Template:Infobox musical artist is unsuitable in the course of the discussion (are you sure you've read it?) and use of unsuitable infoboxes was one of the main reasons that some editors opposed using infoboxes. The compromise that was hammered out was that a custom infobox is created. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
    Yes; I've read it. I asked "Where in that RfC was it decided that this template was to replace instances of other, more fully-featured templates?". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
    The answer is everywhere in the RfC because Infobox Musical Artist is therein declared to be null and void for all non-contemporary composer articles. Indeed, Infobox Person is also declared unuseful for that purpose. If a thing is inappropriate for some of its present uses and a new thing comes along that is recognised as approprate for those uses, then do we really need to debate whether the old is replaced with the new? I might note that you were invited to join that RfC (by me) but you never bothered. If you had bothered, you might have brought up the issues you are now raising here over there. Instead, you take exception to one single attempt to try the new box out in a real article, revert, find another use you object to, throw your hands in the air and send the new box over to TfD. All of that without even bothering to discuss matters with those that actually might know about such things. Several editors here have implied or directly stated that they believe your actions to be disruptive. I concur with them --Jubilee♫clipman 15:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
    As I thought; nowhere. The RfC was not on replacing existing infoboxes; the replacement of infoboxes was not mentioned in the closing remarks; and the RfC was not flagged up on the talk pages of infoboxes which are now being proposed for replacement. There is a closing remark about the new templates unsuitability for contemporary composers ("There was some talk about the need for an infobox for contemporary composers, but a conclusion wasn't really reached so this may be a topic for a future discussion."); but it is being slated for use to replace other templates on such articles anyway. I followed the RfC on a near-daily basis and commented on it on one of the project talk pages. I am thus very familiar with its contents. I chose not to post, because my experience of attempting to discuss such matters under the umbrella of that family of projects is one of having comments archived 17 minutes after making the; ownership, vitriolic personal attacks and dishonesty on behalf of various project members (all documented elsewhere, ad nauseum). Your description of my recent actions is false; and thus unacceptable. This is a discussion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
    Comment - Taking the template here rather than discussing with me its use in Gavin Bryars is extreme, to say the least. If you have read that discussion, you will be aware of how entirely neutral I attempted to be. I perhaps failed on occasion amd I certainly got far too involved in the debate for my own good (and made serious errors of judgement here and there). However, I always tried to be fair to everyone and would certainly have discussed the use and abuse of the infobox with an open mind with you on Bryar's talkpage or mine or yours. If you are accusing me of being closed-minded, part of a cabal, dishonest, vitriolic, and ownery, you now own me an apology. Whatever else is true, you owe one to Wikiproject Composers and all those other editors that took part in the RfC. Since I may have misrepresented you, I apologise and withdraw my comments --Jubilee♫clipman 17:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
    Thank you for your apology; I owe none. If I had a problem with you personally, I would have made that clear. If I had a problem with edits to an individual article, I would raise the matter on its talk page. Unlike several people commenting here, I'm not interested in personalising this issue, and would rather debate it on its merits. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
    OK and no problem . Moving on: once this debate is over and assuming the box is kept (it is early days despite the apparent heavy snowfall recently...), I am certainly interested in discussing with you the best ways of using this box given your experience and wisdom in these matters. There are several other people that need to be involved in the discussion(s), though, including the Composers project and others such as Quiddity (obviously), Ravpapa, and Martin (if he is willing and able) and the various other highly experienced editors that have taken part in these recent discussions. Regarding the project: I honestly think their attitude has changed—or rather, that they are far less likely to reject things out of hand because of percieved (and misplaced) personal OWNership of articles or the apparent IDONTLIKEIT attidudes that seem to have been displayed in the past. Even—or, perhaps, especially—if the box is deleted, we will still need to decide how best to proceed. I look forward to open-minded and constructive dialogue in the future --Jubilee♫clipman 19:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
    OK. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: This template was created on the basis of an extensive RfC which I closed a few days ago. The nominator may not have been aware of this, but I request that he withdraw this nomination and read that discussion before anything else. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks; but no. I've read that discussion fully, and see nothing there which precludes this discussion; or which justifies the new template as used and documented. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    but the discussion does however preclude the description of the box as a redundant fork; as the reasons for discriminating it from {{Infobox musical artist}} and its analogues are very thoroughly spelt out there. Which undermines the the submission for deletion. Therefore, keep.--Smerus (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    It precludes nether; and the fact that the new template was immediately used to replace instances of the old one (link in nomination) supports that description Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    So the action of a template being replaced by a newer template can only be explained by the newer template being a redundant fork of the first? Why would the newer template being a better substitute for the slightly-incongruous original not be an equally-valid interpretation? Happy‑melon 19:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    Feel free to point out where you think I said that. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    "Redundant fork ... created in an apparent attempt to prevent the use of certain parameters of the latter; as can be seen " would seem to express that sentiment fairly clearly. Happy‑melon 21:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    It does nothing of the kind. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    Could you clarify what it does say, then, please? Happy‑melon 21:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nomination rests on the assumption that template forking is uniformly bad and that a template which has a subset of features of another template is necessarily redundant. The extensive discussion MSGJ links above explains the need for a template which does not have all the features of the orthogonal {{Infobox musical artist}}, to avoid the messy edit wars and good-faith mistakes (for which there is substantial past example) that come from trying to cram the square peg of a centuries-old composer, into the round hole of an infobox designed for modern artists. Many composers did not play an instrument to a concert standard; others played several. The |Instrument=, |Genre= and |Occupation= fields are not only meaningless for classical composers, their presence is actively disruptive. Redundant forks are unhelpful and should be removed. A fork which serves a clear purpose, especially one which grew out of a full RfC, is not redundant. Happy‑melon 12:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    Comment That makes sense if the template is only for centuries-only musicians. What about current ones? I've mentioned a disappointment before that David Bedford, who is a classical composer and also a rock musician, and has recorded electronic music albums that don't fall in either category, had his infobox removed because, in another editor's eyes, he is a classical composer above all else, and classical composers don't (didn't) have infoboxes. I don't think there is anything in Infobox musical artist that is inappropriate to Mr. Bedford, if it's used correctly. A similar situation exists for Philip Glass, to mention someone who may not be as obscure. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Per my comments in the RfC and per Happy-melon and Smerus, this infobox serves a clear and valuable purpose. If anything, this TfD discussion is a fork of the RfC, the conclusions of which the nominator doesn't happen to share. Voceditenore (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd rather that people were able to follow content guidelines by themselves than be forced into it by locking out functionality, but this appears to be the least worst solution to the presented problem. Templatespace decisions sometimes need to be made with social factors as well as technical ones in consideration, and this is a good example. Far better this compromise than an eternal battle between having an infobox or not having one at all across the entire realm of classical music, which has gone on for years now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    There has been no change to the classical composer project's policy of opposing infoboxes on articles; the new template's documentation requires local consensus on individual articles, which was the status quo; and the examples and only instances are replacements of pre-existing, and more fully-featured, templates. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    I suppose the question here is one of motives. Is the classical project attempting to thwart the greater community consensus by delivering a death by a thousand cuts to the few infoboxes used on classical composer articles, or is this an attempt to make infoboxes more palatable to the classical project such that they could be gradually weaned into falling in line with everyone else? I would like to think that the latter is the case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    So would I; but there's evidence and experience otherwise, as documented and linked above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    As best I can determine, your methodology for gathering this 'evidence' has consisted of looking at a statistical sample of two articles, decided that they do not meet with your approval, and then orphaning the template and listing it for TfD fourteen hours after it was created. I'm afraid I don't really give that decision-making paradigm very much credence. Happy‑melon 19:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    I give yours less. You know nothing of what I've done; and you owe me an apology for your false accusation. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    I claim that your analysis is based on a sample of two articles, and that you nominated the template for deletion fourteen hours and thirty two minutes after it was created, after removing half the transclusions of the template (although I accept that that's not difficult when the sample size is so pitifully small). Please demonstrate the falsity of those accusations. Happy‑melon 21:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    You make a claim; you prove it. Oh and please be consistent; your two sets of claims show significant differences. Your apology is now overdue. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    I'm not really sure what there is to prove, unless you want me to use a calculator to show that the difference between 20:02 on 21 April and 10:34 on 22 April is 14 hours and 32 minutes (it is). Your claim that my first accusation was false, and your new claim that my second does not match the first, would seem to be what's lacking proof here. Unless you wish to argue that removing half the transclusions of a template (such as they are) does not qualify as orphaning it, or that your use of the two examples in your nomination statement does not imply disapproval of them. In which case, please do be clear as such. Happy‑melon 21:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Quick comment (though I will be back later with my own observations on the actual TfD debate and the template) - the fact that this template is up for TfD breaks its tranclutions, unhelpfully. Any ideas why that might be or how to avoid that so that people can judge it on its merits in-article as well as our words here? Also, the TfD template appears above every occurance of the box in the documentation as well as at the head of the template page: Template:Infobox classical composer/doc. Would includeonly resolve these issues? I don't really understand how to use that kind of markup or deal with such issues. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 16:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - as per the talk that has been going on for months to solve this problem!!Moxy (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't exactly oppose a merge, but I don't think that a merge is necessary, and I'm inclined to allow editors to WP:BOLDly create whatever templates they want. In particular, since this is a relatively new (and extensively discussed) template, I'm not inclined to delete it, or even to merge/redirect it, until editors have some experience with it.
    As a completely separate issue, if someone wants to expand {{Infobox musical artist}} with some of the better ideas that developed during that discussion, I see no reason why they couldn't do that, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Procedural Keep - I was kind of expecting this template to end up here sooner or later. However, the very last person I expected to send it here was Andy Mabbett. I expected him (one of the most vociferous supporters of infoboxes in all of WP) to strongly support the fact that composer articles actually now have a dedicated infobox that Wikiproject Composers (one of the most vociferous opponents of infoboxes in all of WP) actually endorses. Quite an irony that leaves me utterly bemused. First, though, some thoughts:
0. Misuse of a template does not warrant its deletion.
  1. Almost all of the editors in this debate have explained where this box came from. No need to go into that part of its history further.
  2. Similarly named boxes were previously deleted, however, following TfD's. The most recent debate was closed by Happy-melon (almost 2 years ago) with closing advice that goes a long way to explain the RfC and the existence of the present box.
  3. Martin has not "locked out" anyone except IP editors: however, the edit notice and the documentation make it clear that changes need consensus. This is exactly the same situation as found in other templates.
  4. {{Infobox musical artist}} proclaims itself to be "the standard infobox for non-classical musician articles". This disclaimer was added in March 2008 by Kleinzach and retained after long debate reached no consensus for the removal of the words non-classical. Note that that debate appears to have started as a result of this edit made by the present nom in August 2009.
  5. {{Infobox person}} "is an alternative to more specific templates". Where the specific templates exist, it seems reasonable to use said templates rather than the "alternative".
  6. {{Infobox writer}} etc are for other specific articles and have no place in musician or composer articles, IMO.
  7. The nomed box is, therefore, a reasonable and (more importantly) fully endorsed template intended for use in classical composer articles. The debate should not be about whether it remains in existence (an issue dealt with over a month ago) nor even about the fields in contains (ditto) but rather about approprate use of it as a replacement for other templates that are now, in fact, redundant to this template.
  8. Finally, a Content fork can be a positive addition; furthermore, the guideline concerns articles not templates.

Does Andy's motivation genuinely stem from the apparent redundancy of the nomed box or does it rather stem from his desired acceptance of {{Infobox musical artist}} in articles such as Arthur Bliss, Samuel Coleridge-Taylor and Samuel Barber, articles that are clearly not non-classical musician articles (wording he objected to)? Given the weight of argument he gives to his perceived abuse of the new infobox and his later comments and replies, I tend to favour the latter interpretation—though I have been known to get it spectacularly wrong. FWIW, his diff from the Gavin Bryars article misses the point: first, this diff shows that nothing was actually lost during my original replacement of the other box with this one (with the notable exception of the thus redundant "occupation" field); second, I was simply trying the box out in a real article and didn't expect anyone to object given the fact that it was a straight swap; third, Andy actually added more information to the restored infobox than had ever been there during its entire 3 years in that article, including Bryars' URL and instrument. Thus, Andy not only appears to have misinterpreted my intentions but has also (arguably) improved the article by expanding the restored infobox with more information. OTOH, "Double-bassist" could be added to the still-available "occupations" field in the new box (but note the plural form and the explanation of that field in the documentation). However (and this is the real point, perhaps), Bryars is a contemporary composer: the RfC never fully addressed the issue of how to handle their articles. My strong impression, though, is that contemporaries should get an infobox without question. Well, one question: which box? As far as Bryars is concerned, {{Infobox musical artist}} might well be the best box but a simple discussion on the article's talkpage might have resolved that very quickly. As far as composers who died prior to the start of the 20th century are concerned (composers unequivocally non-contemporary, in anyone's book), however, I see only two options: allow the use of templates strongly objected to by the editors who most often edit those articles or allow the use of a template endorsed by those editors. Given that a significant number of non-contemporary classical composer articles have one of these other templates (see the Composers project's talkpage), we need something.

BTW, I am not going to !vote here because I really have no personal preference regarding the inclusion of infoboxes let alone the inclusion of any specific infobox. However, I suspect that the nom will feel the thump of a large round white object composed of crystalised water, soon. The recommended Speedy Keep criteria might include 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4, BTW, especially the latter two. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 20:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I rather think you've misinterpreted what "!vote" means, but regardless I think Andy's already said why he nominated, in his reply to my "motives" comment. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Vote duly cast --Jubilee♫clipman 15:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure Jubileeclipman has been around long enough to know what !voting means, and if he doesn't care to weigh in, that's his perogative. I won't be !voting either, though I am keen to add comments to be considered by those who do. Just wanted to comment on Jubileeclipman's point #4, "Note that that debate appears to have started as a result of this edit made by the present nom in August 2009": it's certainly debatable as to who "started" it. The first change was indeed made 2 years previously, and the person who made it did so with no discussion whatsoever, and it may not have been noticed by anyone. Then the revert in your link came in 2 years later, after no discussion whatsoever, and it may not have been noticed by anyone. (I guess we're all blind!) Then, 6 months later, the statement got reinstated, you guessed it, with no discussion whatsoever, then reverted immediately this time by another player in the current discussion, with no discussion. At that point I stepped in and finally got a discussion going. So I started it. And what thanks did I get? I got accused of bias, POV pushing, and other nasties, when my intention was to stop an edit war. What's more, the person who made these accusations also unfairly dismissed the entire work of the nom as disruptive, which obviously is not true. As a result of that incident, I tend to be sympathetic toward the nom, as a co-bashee. But while I support his work, it's also clear that this current debate marks another gathering of a familiar gang who argue in a confrontational way. In particular, the bickering near the top, along the lines of "let me reinterpret what you said" followed by "that's not what I said, but I'm not going to explain". Can we have non-controntational posts that don't invite non-productive responses? A little more maturity, please? I see some of us are improving. Maybe that doesn't include me, now that I've posted this. But this discussion has turned into a free-for-all anyway, and won't be on a non-archived page for long, so what the heck. It's approaching 4 in the morning here, if I can use that as an excuse. :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the other editor that may or may not have started that older debate (i.e. neither Andy nor you): that editor was, in fact, partly responsible for the RfC also. He and Moxy (as Buzzzsherman) had fun reverting each other and then a shouting match ensued. I weighed in and suggested RfC, Moxy called it and the rest is history—or should be. It was to be the debate to end all debates but that obviously failed! (Just to be clear: see here for the other half of that RfC which was actually refactored half way through to start at my "A new perspective" section so that I appear to be the nom in the later phase of it.) --Jubilee♫clipman 15:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Like it or not (and I'm still not sure that I do), the template under discussion came about after discussion that was thorough and thoughtful and that gave ample opportunity for all to air views on the subject--which participants, this one included, did at great length. As far as I'm concerned, the question is settled, even if, like most good compromises, it leaves everyone somewhat unhappy. The time has come to start making positive contributions to Misplaced Pages instead of spending countless hours belaboring a defunct equine. And while we're on the subject of the animal kingdom, I heartily endorse the piscatorial suggestion offered at the outset, richly earned for combattively attempting to reignite this controversy so soon after it was, we thought, amicably put to rest. Drhoehl (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Région Midi-Pyrénées

Template:Région Midi-Pyrénées (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Région Poitou-Charentes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned templates, probably copied over from the French Misplaced Pages. Plastikspork (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)