Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 April 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Retro (talk | contribs) at 21:31, 6 April 2018 (→Template:LGBT films list lead: Indent.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< April 3 April 5 >

April 4

Template:Insular Areas TV

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 remove cattle from stage 23:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-x1

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep - tagging as historical is sufficient. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep per historically significance. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LGBT films list lead

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

Comment (template creator): The relevant guideline is in Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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:LBGT films list lead}}. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 05:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
Extended discussion about LST and Pppery's subst vote
@Pppery: What is "LST-ifying"? E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 17:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that is a jargony term. It means converting to use labeled section transclusion. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: The template only takes one parameter that's important, and I can easily modify that to pre-check and fill it in. The template mainly functions through page title parsing; would that work with LST? I'm admittedly unfamiliar with LST, and am currently reading the page to try to understand it. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 17:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: (Fixing ping.) E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 17:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably would technically work, but I'd oppose it anyway on the grounds of needless pollution of articles with template coding (yes, I am aware there's a fine line between this) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: The thing is, I don't see this template as needless, because the leads are all identical, and standard phrasing is not necessarily negative for a set of lists because lists are defined based on fixed criteria; my opinion is if the leads are not customized, the template is a recognition of that. This is not the exclude future variation if it has a point (e.g. "the 60's were a time when LBGT related film releases began to increase in frequency, and were defined by X and Y.) Even with variation, this template could simply serve as a basis for standardizing the lists' inclusion criteria.
I am probably missing some of your concerns, and I invite you to express them if I am. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 17:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have two related but distinct beliefs here. 1: Templates should not be articles -- no text that can be stored in mainspace should be stored in templates 2: Articles should not be templates and should not contain markup like {{PAGENAME}} or {{#if}}. Given that the leads of the lists are not exactly identical (some numbers change), it is impossible to satisfy both of these goals without duplicating the text. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: I suspect it may come down to a difference in values then. #1 makes sense as a general rule, but I think specific exceptions can be made, and I think this case warrants an exception. I completely agree with #2. I'm unsure what you meant when you said "Given that the leads of the lists are not exactly identical (some numbers change), it is impossible to satisfy both of these goals without duplicating the text." By those beliefs, wouldn't you still oppose the use of templates even if the leads were (hypothetically) completely identical, because of belief #1? Also, I suspect I already know the answer, but what is the rationale for belief #1? E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 13:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Were the leads completely identical, I would !vote LST-ify. To the second question, that belief is an extrapolation from the relevant paragraph of WP:TMPG quoted above. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 grammatical 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Template:ScreenActorsGuildAward CastMotionPicture

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

@Philafrenzy, MarnetteD, Randy Kryn, TonyTheTiger, and Primefac: Pinging all contributors to the previous discussion. --woodensuperman 13:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Phonemetra

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting mostly for more thoughts on whether the content of the template should be removed entirely or substed onto the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_4&oldid=835150498"