Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 January 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Only in death (talk | contribs) at 22:25, 18 January 2018 (→Template:Wikidata icon). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< January 15 January 17 >

January 16

Template:University of Maryland campus

redundant to template:infobox building or template:infobox telescope or ... Frietjes (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikidata icon

A flag-like icon (that doesn't change color when clicking) is less than suboptimal for a link (an external link no less). See preliminary discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Link to Wikidata in existing tables if they are not getting an article. I don't think this can be remedied by choosing another icon: it would always remain a link with WP:EGG-like issues. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is nominating for deletion the subject of an active RFC. It seems like gaming the RFC system when you delete one of the options at an active RFC. Even the presence of deletion tag during an active RFC harms the outcome by disparaging one of the choices. --RAN (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Gaming the RFC system", What happened to AGF??? Although related, the result of the RFC is not dependent on the result of this discussion. Also someone has now linked to this discussion at the RFC, making your point moot. If someone feels strongly that this icon needs to exist, they can just click the link and come here.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: - ANI? No. In fact it was the charge "It's WP:GAMING the system" that started off the "RfC" in an adversarial way. Might you consider for a second that your comments were not made in good faith? -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence that there was anything bad faith about this nomination, or about SMcCandlish defending the nominator from spurious accusations of it. Reyk YO! 08:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No—let's not 'ANI' Fuzheado. How about finishing both discussions, and then discussing with the proposer here what the intentions were after we know what is going to happen next? –Sb2001 12:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indistinguishable from a Template:Flagicon instance, and we should never use icons like this inline in prose anyway, per MOS:ICONS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  00:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Uses that choose an image to show (i.e. in an infobox) are better done locally. Uses such as the one in [1] make little sense. Overall, I think that the valid uses of this template seem to duplicate existing functionality, while the other uses don't agree with longstanding practice or with the external links guideline. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • : ( So this is one more element of Wikidata sneaking in the back door; this only is used in 28 articles so far so almost nobody has noticed. I don't really see how this is useful and fear that maintaining this could distract gnomes from more important local-based tasks. We really need all hands on deck for that. Then there are the privacy issues with posting uncited personal data on non-notable living people. How is this not a privacy violation? This TfD may be premature as potentially the outcome of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Linking to wikidata could make it moot. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Misleading to readers and not good for accessibility. Regardless of whether we allow inline Wikidata links in some form, this should not be it. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. SMcCandlish, Wbm1058 and David Eppstein have already expanded on the reasoning I would use, so "per them", really. Contrary to MOS:ICONS, misleading and poor for accessibility, potential privacy issues. Overall, problematic in several areas and not useful. -- Begoon 03:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. But we need a general, well-developed RfC on Wikidata to lay these things to rest (not the one we are having now at the MOS page, not the one on infoboxes only that a few well-meaning editors are developing for months and months). Fram (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Eppstein, Wbm1058 et al; confusing, linking to data that doesn't really comply with our policies. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- firstly, this is quite easy to confuse for a Template:Flagicon. Secondly, the use of Wikidata should be the exception rather than the rule because the content of Wikidata is usually useless and frequently erroneous. We should not be standardising its use with streamlined and official-looking templates. Reyk YO! 07:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or deprecate using the template where space is not limited (or even prevent it from displaying in articles); the Wikidata icon is not recognizable enough without any text, especially at the size used in this template. If the links are to be kept, then use {{Interlanguage link}} with |display=1. Jc86035 (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would appear that all the people who are voting 'delete' here are those who are opposed to linking to Wikidata in general (over at the RfC) and also vice versa with those voting 'keep'. (I've not done a scientific study cross-referencing ALL commenters but it's true for most part). It is my strong impression that this TfD debate is being used as a 'proxy war' by those arguing against the use of Wikidata on Wikipedia at all. Most (if not all?) commenters here are also commenters over on that RfC. [note: I am the creator of the template under discussion]. Wittylama 11:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, thanks enormously for slopping your broad-brushed, poor-faith paint onto me as one of "all the people who are voting 'delete' here". As it happens, I do feel wikidata at present is dangerously unreliable, not subject to our quality control, and vulnerable to abuse that is difficult to detect, curated according to uncertain "rules", and we shouldn't be using it in such a way as to make it seem reliable when it isn't. That's an opinion I've formed over a period, from observation, and also one I've rarely expressed, much less gone to "war" over. I also oppose retention of this template for the other reasons I gave in my vote. I'm part of no faction or "proxy-war" though, and I strongly resent the implication. Sheesh. -- Begoon 16:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template serves the purpose of giving readers access to more information about an item within a table without interrupting to the normal link behaviour of Wikipedia: blue-link, red-link, no-link. All of these link options are retained. This template is designed for list articles where not every item in the list is necessarily appropriate for a standalone Wikipedia article [yet?] but THEY ARE ALL applicable for Wikidata items (practical example); or when the infobox is about two separate things described in the same article (practical example).
Votes to 'delete' which refer to the choice of image (with reference to Template:Flagicon etc) are invalid arguments in my opinion. If you don't like the image choice for whatever reason, propose an alternative. That is: Don't delete the functionality of a template because you don't like the graphic that it uses. The questioning of a "flag-like icon" on en.wp is at odds with the way we link to our own sister-sites as standard visual language (see also my comment immediately above). People arguing to delete this template for other reasons (e.g. privacy concerns?!?) are blaming this template for concerns they have with Wikidata in general, and are therefore out of the control of this template and out of the scope of this discussion. [note: I am the creator of the template under discussion]. Wittylama 11:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if one wishes that wikidata links shouldn't be there due to concerns over wikidata quality, why allow a template for it? Similar stuff for external links are regularly debated - bad external links usually don't have templates for them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But this nomination for discussion is ostensibly about the icon/image being used - not about whether there should be links to the equivalent WD items at all. Wittylama 12:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can understand the argument that the wikitext of this template may appear confusing to editors unfamiliar with Wikidata, but frankly, I feel that by now everyone editing Wikipedia should at least know about Commons and Wikidata anyway. I also feel that people creating articles should be responsible for the associated Wikidata item, either creating it or linking it to the existing item. I would go further and claim that all wikipedia lists should include this icon on a line-by-line basis, with the caveat that I do not use the visual editor so I have no idea whether that is feasible using the visual editor. Jane (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not about being confusing to editors, it is about being confusing to readers, most of whom don't know about Wikidata, have no reason to ever visit it, and shouldn't be bothered with it. What editors should or shouldn't do is think about the readers. Fram (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its an absurd and pointy discussion, Sadads (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm seeing things like "easter egg" and can only wonder what the general public thinks vde means... There is nothing fundamentally special about this template, definitely nothing more special than any of the {{icon}} related ones. If editors would have half as much concern about the usability of the wiki with regard to templates in general, rather than those that happen to touch wikidata, the encyclopaedia would be a lot more usable. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something like "v-d-e" is in the corner of a box, not in the middle of the text, next to a name or word, like a flag would be. I'm not saying "v-d-e" is ideal, but having maintenance links on the sides of "boxes" is much less surprising than having one type of external link in the middle of text indicated with an unknown flag-like icon. Fram (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete—there should not be icons in running text, which is how this is being used in at least some cases. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if we should decide to link to Wikidata, this is a poor way to do it. Thiis not a flag link, but it looks too much like one, and flag links have a different purpose. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, at least until the RFC is concluded. This discussion is premature and could have the effect of undermining the results of the other discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per SMcCandlish, DGG, etc and MOS:ICONS. Kanguole 11:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there seem to be no proper and credible examples of where this template has actually caused confusion for readers. This template is being discussed at WT:MOS, so this deletion nomination should not have occurred. I do—however—trust that the nominator acted with good intentions, perhaps not realising the confusion this would cause to the debate already taking place. I would happily see this discussion happen again once the MoS RfC has reached a conclusion. –Sb2001 12:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SMcCandlish, DGG, etc and MOS:ICONS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing

If the above TfD is reopened, the closing admin will need to note that many of the delete comments came after some very partisan canvassing, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Inline flag-like icon for Wikidata, at TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like "No one should be nominating for deletion something being actively discussed at an RFC." you mean? It would be fair to say that many of the votes came from that discussion, where people from both sides (and many from the middle) of the Wikidata debates are present. Poisoning the well by arguing that many of the delete votes were canvassed is a dirty tactic. Fram (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean - as I'm sure you have the wit to realise - the OP in the section; which was made at 00:36 UTC and was followed by eight delete comments here (within just five hours) and, er, just one keep, the latter being by the template's creator. The "dirty tactic" is that canvassing; that and the implication that any of the keep comments arose from it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A neutrally worded notification at a central loaction is not canvassing. If, in your view, eight delete votes in five hours is proof of canvassing, what is your opinion of seven consecutive keep votes in less than 45 minutes? With a lot of completely unwarranted and inaccurate attacks on the nominator too. Reyk YO! 17:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"A neutrally worded notification at a central loaction [sic] is not canvassing." Indeed so. The post in question (which said in part "The fact that the nominator was blatantly accused of bad faith in even daring to open this template for discussion says a lot about the bloc vote going on over there right now.") fails that test by a country mile. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even a closure; a procedural early keep (wait until the RfC ends) would've been defensible but not hatting. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, can we close with Procedural Keep please? Yes, I invented my own "suspend" process, but there's too much cross-talk from the RfC; the signal-to-noise ratio is too weak, no consensus-building is going to happen here, and it's feeding the flame-war at the RfC. Batternut (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the original RfC is not very well done either, but eh, i'd support a procedural keep, which should probably be done by an uninvolved editor/admin. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The hatting by itself was not very helpful as the argument spread to a section outside of the hat; a procedural keep would either shift it to DRV or end the discussion properly. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So it seems, alas. Ho hum, live and learn... Batternut (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: As someone who frequently closes TfDs, I see no reason to close this short of the requisite seven days. Canvassing will be considered when this TfD is closed. Nihlus 14:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a just "revenge complaint" (by a user with a long history of personal animosity toward me). I object to: the bloc vote of Wikidata fans and its partisan nature; to the blatant assumptions of bad faith and WP:ASPERSIONS name-calling (both of which are due an administrative warning at the least) against opposers of this template; and to the attempt to close the discussion early while the bloc vote dominates (both calls to do so in this discussion and a rejected request for speedy closure at WP:AN/RFC [2]. So, I notified the place where icons like this are generally discussed – the talk page of the guideline about them – since those who opened the discussion and those in favor of the template did not do so. Now I'm being accused of partisan canvassing (despite having said nothing about which way anyone should !vote, and the venue notified being neither for nor against icons, but only about when/how to use and not use them). I call it opening the discussion to more voices, which is what XfDs, RfCs, etc. are for to begin with (but virtually no one watches TfD other than its regulars). PS: The ongoing RfC isn't about this template, but about linking to Wikidata in lieu of red-linking or not linking, and the issues raised in it are primarily policy concerns; while this template is mentioned in the RfC it is not the subject of it, so the TfD is not redundant.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been an editor here since 2004. Why should my !vote be discounted because you've included me in some arbitrary group of "wikidata fans"? Can I make up a group of "wikidata haters" and discount their !votes? Sorry that people disagree with you, but as an experienced Wikipedia editor you should have plenty of experience dealing with those kinds of disagreements more appropriately. Gamaliel (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VictorianTouristStations

I replaced this with standard {{rail line}} templates, so it's no longer needed Frietjes (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R from ambiguous term

Propose merging Template:R from ambiguous term with Template:R from incomplete disambiguation.
I've been looking at these two templates off and on for a few days now, and I'm still not seeing the distinction between the two templates. At the present time, the way which the two templates are worded when transcluded seems too similar to one another; also, an ambiguous term could have incomplete disambiguation, and a title with incomplete disambiguation is also an ambiguous term. Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Pinging Paine Ellsworth to see if a resolution may occur that could result in me withdrawing this discussion ... as merging is the only resolution I see right now. Steel1943 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Some statistics: R from ambiguous term has 286 uses with parentheses; 10,183 without. R from incomplete disambiguation has 21,647 uses with parentheses; 1,278 without. Some of the exceptions may be correct, e.g. The Dream Team (TDT)The Dream Team (TDT) is an ambiguous term and Adamsville, FloridaAdamsville, Florida is debatably an incomplete disambiguation. Certes (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although the categories may be nested, pages with {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} generally don't have {{R from ambiguous term}}. Only 50 redirects such as The PileThe Pile and Bad Girls (album)Bad Girls (album) have both templates. Certes (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:DIFFUSE members of {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} probably don't need to also be in Category:Redirects from ambiguous terms. wbm1058 (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ARPrelim

unused; at first I thought this was unused because it is being substituted, but the instructions specifically say that it should not be substituted. Frietjes (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't know a huge amount about Arbcom, but I'm guessing the frequency is low and the template is removed quickly. The template is referenced at Wikipedia:Abuse response/Guide to abuse response. I'd suggest a merger into Template:ARA ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NYC year nav

Navbox links categories, not articles, and as such, should not be used in article space as no reader would expect to end up at a category when clicking on a link here (see WP:EGG). As it isn't employed elsewhere, this should be deleted. Per WP:NAVBOX: "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia". --woodensuperman 09:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The navbox aids navigation through the city's history, year by year, and its presence on various article pages helps contextualize each article within the larger sweep of time. Each year link leads to a lot of useful information about the city. -- M2545 (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what a navbox is for. It should link related articles. See WP:NAVBOX. And it should only be transcluded on those articles that are mentioned in the navbox. See WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. --woodensuperman 15:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NAVBOX. if this were being used exclusively in category-space, I could see keeping it. but it's not, so it's really not that helpful. if you really need a link to category space, you can accomplish the same thing with a single link to Category:Years in New York City, which doesn't need to be updated every year. Frietjes (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:National Uprisings under the Ottoman Empire

unused Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged BladesGodric 06:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Districts of the Metropolitan Association of Upper Silesia

This template is only transcluded onto Metropolitan Association of Upper Silesia and nowhere else. ToThAc (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged BladesGodric 06:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Defiant Championship

Parent article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Championship. Nikki♥311 01:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current U.S. Cabinet

Propose merging Template:Current U.S. Cabinet with Template:Trump cabinet.
Not sure which one to be kept {{Current U.S. Cabinet}} was created in 2006 and the earliest revisions seem to be broken. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Major information technology companies

looks like WP:OR with an arbitrary cut-off for inclusion Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nihlus 00:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Undefined inclusion criteria. Not really useful as a navigational aid as the articles are not interconnected. --woodensuperman 15:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The methodology is probably the most confusing thing I've ever seen on a template. And the size is ridiculous, mostly caused by the term "major" being entirely subjective... and based in some strange arbitrary function. Simply not useful to our readers anymore than a category page would be like this. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:((((

Unused template. 190.204.116.229 (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_16&oldid=821184798"