Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 3 April 5 >

April 4[edit]

Template:Infraspeciesbox[edit]

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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only two transclusions; replace with {{Taxobox}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly disagree This template is part of the automatic taxobox system (see Template:Automatic_taxobox/doc/intro). It cannot be replaced by {{Taxobox}} because the latter is a manual taxobox template. {{Infraspeciesbox}} is a counterpart to {{Subspeciesbox}}, which is the automatic taxobox for zoological subspecies. Neither are much used because we don't have many articles about animal subspecies and plant infraspecies, but they are both essential parts of an integrated package for automating taxoboxes. Before they were constructed, editors tried (and failed) to use {{Speciesbox}}; when only {{Subspeciesbox}} existed, editors used this for plant infraspecies but botanical infraspecies must have a connecting term whereas zoological subspecies don't so it didn't display correctly. The automatic taxobox system is slowly gaining in use, and there will undoubtedly be more uses of this template in future, although doubtless never very many. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep per User:Plastikspork User:Peter coxhead - few transclutions arent a rationale for deletion. Christian75 (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
lol, how did Plastikspork !vote? Frietjes (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(S)he definitely should, but I have corrected my "per" Christian75 (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep perhaps only used in two articles, I see a long list of templates that are using this template. This sounds like a future disaster... The Banner talk 01:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They're simply linking to this template in their documentation. Alakzi (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of them? The Banner talk 10:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Alakzi (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you want this link. Frietjes (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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:Infobox dog crossbreed[edit]

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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox dog crossbreed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (12 transclusions)
Template:Infobox dog breed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (607 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox dog crossbreed with Template:Infobox dog breed.

No need for a separate template for crossbreeds. See also Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Needs to be clear how to add multiple breeds as the crossbreed's source.
  1. All the attributes for being recognized by various kennel clubs isn't necessary for crossbreeds.
  2. Most of the attributes, such as color and size, aren't likely to apply to mixes--for example, check out Goldendoodle, or here is a google image search for yorki poos.
But, whatever. Elf | Talk 22:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As Elf states above, most of the attributes do not apply to cross breeds. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then simply leave them blank; that's not a reason to have a separate template, for just 12 of 619 cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • People don't leave them blank though and then problems start to arise. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a content issue, though, not something we should address with a forked template and - again - especially not for for just 12 of 619 cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was editing dog articles now for seven years - and one of the difficult part is pushing exactly on Wikipedia for a dog crossbred or any breed that was recently created as a cross-dog breed in hope it will be faster recognized - it is a real POV pushing arena. All kinds of crossbreeds or side breeds pop up daily and hourly created by hopeful quasi-breeders that hope to be able to sell their puppies with a higher price if there is a breed - crossbreed article on Wikipedia. Sometimes they cheat and put in fake AKC or other kennel club templates and links to, claiming that they are a registered breed, when not. If you are a registered breeder, you have standards to live up to, in breeding, vaccination, medical checks. Unregistered breeders are often not the kind of responsible breeders like the ones registered at Kennel clubs, just breeders who want the profit but not the responsibility coming with breeding to deal with. - (The other is snapshots of low quality - the My Pet Is The Best - type - added to all dog articles.) Hafspajen (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because most of the attributes do not apply to cross breeds. Problematic suggestion. The Dog Project has enough problems with infoboxes as it is, we don't need another one to cope with. Also why wasn't the Dog project notified about this? Hafspajen (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is some difference between Shih-poo and Lhasa Apso. Some of the articles have explained the cross breeds. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal for common sense: {{Infobox dog crossbreed}} has only six parameters:

  1. |name=
  2. |image=
  3. |caption=
  4. |breeds=
  5. |altname=
  6. |note=

All of these, except |breeds=, are in {{Infobox dog breed}}. If |breeds= is added to {{Infobox dog breed}}, then it could be used as a switch to prevent the display of Kennel Club or similar parameters. And if |breeds= is added to {{Infobox dog breed}}, then there is no reason that it cannot be used on the article about the example given above, Shih-poo. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The crossbreed template has too few parameters to be interesting or useful. It should either be deleted or merged. One imagines that parameters such as body size are reasonably consistent for those few crossbreeds that have sufficient secondary sourcing to have an article. If merged, fears of disreputable breeders adding fake AKC data will not be realized and as Andy Macbeth proposes, can be prevented from appearing anyway. Abductive (reasoning) 02:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am afraid you underestimate the amount of vandalism pet articles are facing. We at the Dog Project are only two or three regulars and there are very few that patrol recent dog articles changes with regularity, actually only one person as we speak. All efforts to keep vandalism down are essential. You are speaking technicalities, but know nothing about the situation in dog articles. Hafspajen (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per PotW and Abductive, the problems can be solved, and the crossbreed template is not unique enough to be its own template —PC-XT+ 08:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who is going to solve them? Are you interested to patrol dog articles at least two times a week? Hafspajen (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe editors can solve the template problems via discussion and template editing. I consider the POV and vandalism problems at least partially outside the scope of a TfD, but I wouldn't support this if I thought it would make that stuff worse. Solutions beyond this scope can be considered in such discussion. For instance, maybe a bot could verify codes in authority databases to help flag problem pages. —PC-XT+ 23:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately, when we were trying to get help to adjust the dog breed template so the traits would automatically appear in a collapsed state, nobody chose to help so I doubt if anyone will help with this either. I'm unsure why our opinions were even sought on this merge as any comments against it have just been belittled. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Where did you ask for this help? There is no reason to suppose none will be forthcoming for the proposed merger; I'm willing to help and I am sure others will, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - While I am sympathetic to merges of templates for closely related subjects, I am also very mindful that these infobox templates do no exist in a vacuum where long-term template updates and coding maintenance are the only concerns. This is a perfect example in which the two separate templates exist for logical reasons apart from their several shared parameters; in this case, it's not about common parameters, but excluded parameters. Several of the parameters in the larger Dog breed template are inappropriate for dog crossbreeds; combining the two templates perpetuates an ongoing maintenance problem for the editors who write and maintain the cross-breed articles. Infobox "consolidation" is not a Wikipedia policy, nor a guideline; it's an essay and a common-sense goal of reducing the proliferation of closely related templates, that applies logically when templates can be combined with no adverse consequences. Here, we have the cart before the horse; consolidation of templates should never create ongoing article maintenance issues. In this case, better to leave well enough alone. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The merging does not seem to solve any current problem and may significantly contribute to an increasing pretense that a crossbreed (Labrador/Poodle) is a stable breed (Labradoodle) with consistent characteristics, increasing the need for maintenance of the crossbreed articles. Canis5855 (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem addressed by this proposal is described in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation, which is linked in the nomination. Your hypothetical labradoodle concern is not a matter that can be remedied by template structure or template names. You fail to address the points I made above, in my comment prefixed "Appeal for common sense". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - All parameters would be covered by a merge. Those opposing don't seem to understand that you only use the ones you need. Everything would be the same as before, except additional information covered in the full infobox, like size and colour, could be added. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment - Much of what has been said is about the state of the related Articles and has nothing to do with the Infobox. Secondarywaltz (talk)
    • We USE infoboxes. Actually. I does matter. They are not infoboxes just for being infoboxes for the infobox notions sake. If more problems are caused we might simply have to remove them, all of them. There is nothing that say infoboxes are a necessity. We were actually discussing option this with dog editors. Hafspajen (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You might try to remove them for that reason, but such behaviour would be disruptive, and would not find community consensus. Indeed, even the threat to do so is disruptive, and I suggest therefore that you withdraw it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly! What you say here is about whether you want to use an Infobox not about how it works. That is a different discussion. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Completely missing the point. Which parameters are intentionally excluded, and therefore unavailable to be erroneously used, can be every bit as important as which parameters are included. The sassy back-and-forth betrays a complete lack of understanding of the issues raised by the users of the template. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again. You are talking about misuse or vandalism, not about the template. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Again, you're missing the point. We don't merge templates for the sake of merging templates, knowing that that the merged template will create problems in actual use. By excluding certain parameters that do not apply to the particularly contemplated use, they cannot be erroneously used, intentionally or unintentionally. There is no offsetting benefit to the proposed merge. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • False premise: we don't "know that that the merged template will create problems in actual use". Indeed, those of us who understand such things not only know that no such problems will be caused, but have explained in this discussion how they can be avoided, through the use of simple template coding. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • So what's stopping anyone from using {{Infobox dog breed}} in crossbreed articles? Alakzi (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • *cough* Tamaskan Dog; Lurcher; Northern Inuit Dog; Zuchon; Beaglier; Poochon. But yes, the current setup is the real deterrent; let's not be fazed by facts. Alakzi (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • What's to stop someone from using a baseball player's infobox on a football player's article? In my practical experience, the kinds of POV or newbie editors who cause these problems usually don't have the background to know about other available alternate infobox templates. When we employ large master templates, with many optional parameters that do not apply to a particular use, sometimes optional parameters are erroneously added. Once chosen and added to an article, particular infobox templates are rarely changed. That requires a different level of understanding. The very simple template involved here for dog crossbreeds serves its intended purpose perfectly; desired parameters are included, inappropriate parameters are excluded. The proposed merged template does not serve the intended purpose as well as the existing simple template. It's that simple, and no real benefit is derived from the merge except we can say there is one fewer template when we're done. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Alakzi et al: Those "breeds" are contentious: Tamaskan and Northern Inuit have been nominated for deletion several times, while Zuchon, Beaglier and Poochon were either deleted and re-created or merged then someone has messed around and again re-created them. Editors have become jaded trying to battle against it. I expect we will again be condescendingly told "but these are content problems, nothing to do with templates ... blah, blah, blah". I thought, evidently wrongly, that templates were supposed to aid content editors/readers? Merging these templates is simply adding to the work of (the very few of us) who try to maintain the dog articles. As crossbreeds, weights/heights etc cannot be gauged at all - those are parameters that cause us considerable problems even in articles where they are referenced - ask Drmies about our IP hopping dog disruptor - the simpler we can keep it the better, IMO. Does retaining the two separate templates really cause such a huge problem? SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • And yet those articles still exist, by consensus. It's unfortunate that you consider it "condescending" to have facts of which you appear ignorant pointed out to you; but your feelings in that regard do not negate those facts. You also fail to address the points I made above, in my comment prefixed "Appeal for common sense". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • As whenever we have tried to explain our position, we have been met with edit summaries reading "FFS" and sub headings of "Appeal for common sense" - perhaps we feel it would be common sense to simply keep this small template? - there appears to be very little point in further participation in this "discussion". SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those have to be changed, the ones Alakzi pointed out. As soon as we are ready here. We don't want to waste time on unnecessary changes. Adding to the work of those who try to maintain the dog articles, is just waste of time. We recently discovered for example an article that was a complete hoax, with a very formal official infobox - yeah - that was here a whole year, without anyone noticing it. That is because there are very few that do actively patrol and check dog articles. But often we are only working on the articles that show up on recent changes - and that is already enough work going through those, every day. We should go through that list and remove those who are not active, too. Yeah, as I thought, some like editing dog cartoons, some own a dog and we have a couple editors - like User:Tikuko, User:Dougweller and User:Miyagawa who actually do know about dog breeds - and edit them time to time - and that's it. (plus the editors above) - and then we have the regular dog vandals like Mr Kwiecinski alias John Kwiecinski and a cirka 50 IPs that are his, who walk around the Wiki and change dog data. Hafspajen (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you talking about. This has nothing to do with the infobox. Take your problems elsewhere! Secondarywaltz (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) YOU ARE UNCIVIL. Kindly check WP:CIVILabout conducting discussions in a civil manner, also known as Wikipedias Pillar nr 4. I expect better behavior from an editor editing since 2007, you should really know better. 2) Yes, it has to do with infoboxes. They happen to have a practical use. --Hafspajen (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand what is being proposed here? There is not one thing in the paragraph above that is relevant to this discussion on merging the infobox. You talk about article maintenance, hoaxes and vandals. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I do. I am talking about article maintenance, hoaxes and vandals - because the merge will add to the already existing problems: article maintenance, hoaxes and vandals. That is what I am trying to explain for those who are unfamiliar with the situation ... Hafspajen (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is off topic, unless we are talking about how to improve the template to help deal with these problems. A merge can be an excellent time for improvement. There was a mention, above, about having the template auto-fill some of this information. I'd be willing to look into that, if I have time, but I would prefer doing so during a merge, for efficiency reasons. I'm sure other editors would be willing, if I am unable. We'd need specifics of which database(s) to import, and how to otherwise implement the autofill. Categories could be created to hold questionable articles. It could be a help. —PC-XT+ 05:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that the discussion is rather long, but it is not of topic art all. A merge can add to the burden of the article maintenance. That is what we dog editors were trying too explain - in spite of everybody saying all the time something else. And whenever we have tried to explain our position, people start saying it's of topic. It is not of topic. It is about the situation in the articles where the info-boxes are used. The info-boxes are created for the articles, not the other way round. Hafspajen (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we agree that the templates could use improvement. I think we need to find common ground so that such improvement doesn't stagnate; we should keep discussion to finding improvements which overcome the problems. By off topic, I mean that this discussion is about this particular merge proposal, rather than generalities. If there is still a problem with article maintenance that will become worse because of this template and it hasn't already been addressed, please do bring it up. One merged template can automatically emulate each of these templates with no changes to the transclusions if using a redirect. This would solve the problem of unregistered breeds using the wrong template, and make it easier to track, verify and maintain, from my point of view. Perhaps we need an actual example, so I have edited {{Infobox dog breed/sandbox}} and added a section to Template:Infobox dog breed/testcases for testing it. |breeds= is used as the switch, but Yorkipoo doesn't use this. It probably should, but it may be good to verify breeds with a database, rather than accepting the parameter, due to the hoax concerns, etc. What do you think? —PC-XT+ 08:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC) 08:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see the need, nor do I see community support for the Infobox consolidation project. Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Infoboxes are similar enough and the usage of the breeds parameter could be used as a switch to turn off other parameters. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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:Infobox Uppsala nations[edit]

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(talk) 19:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Uppsala nations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox residential college}} and {{Uppsala University}}. I've replaced one transclusion to demonstrate. Alakzi (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_4&oldid=1087978491"