Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 31

< January 30	February 1 >

January 31[edit]

Template:UWashSIG[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) 01:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only a few transclusions. All are dead links. Previous efforts to fix not successful (Category talk:Anatomy external link templates), therefore I propose deletion Tom (LT) (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Basic information about this template was already stored at Category talk:Anatomy external link templates. So there are no harms to delete this template, which can now provide readers only dead links. Same as this case (Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_25#Template:MUNAnatomy) --Was a bee (talk) 20:35, 4 February 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:Stedman's[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) 00:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stedman's (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only a few transclusions. All are dead links. Previous efforts to fix not successful (Category talk:Anatomy external link templates), therefore I propose deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Basic information about this template was already stored at Category talk:Anatomy external link templates. So there are no harms to delete this template, which can now provide readers only dead links. Same as this case (Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_25#Template:MUNAnatomy) --Was a bee (talk) 20:36, 4 February 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 nonhuman protein[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 do not merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox nonhuman protein (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (96 transclusions)

Template:Infobox protein (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (963 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Infobox nonhuman protein with Template:Infobox protein.
Largely similar; specific parameters are (or can be made) optional, and if necessary conditional on an |Organism= parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – in theory these two infoboxes could be merged, but each contains rather specific information and link to a non-overlapping set of databases. The {{infobox protein}} parameters |HGNCid=, |OMIM=, |IUPHAR_id= are only appropriate for human proteins since they point to human specific protein databases. Likewise |Chromosome=, |Arm=, |Band=, and |LocusSupplementaryData= are only appropriate to designate the location of the corresponding human gene that encodes the protein. The {{Infobox nonhuman protein}} parameters |TaxID=, |EntrezChromosome=, |GenLoc_start=, |GenLoc_end= could in principle be used for both human or non-human genes, but are redundant and arguably less useful than the above human gene links. A merged template would introduce confusion as to which subset of parameters should be used. Finally it would also require a fair amount of work rewrite the infobox as well as make appropriate changes to the transcluded templates. This would create a lot of work for little benefit. Why fix something that isn't broke? Boghog (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As I noted, the specific parameters could be made switchable depending on the presence or otherwise of, say, |Organism=. The work is not an issue - there are volunteers willing to do it. The reasons why we need to reduce the number of overlapping templates are explained in Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The volunteers would need to know something about proteins and there are not a lot of us left at WP:MCB. Our time would be better spent on other tasks. As I see it, a merged template would introduce confusion and create unnecessary work. Also a merged template would have a more complex structure making long term maintenance more difficult, not less. Boghog (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are more volunteers than those of you in WP:MCB. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I said, the volunteers would need to know something about proteins. Boghog (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger, at least for now. The suggestion to merge them into a single more complex template is just displacing the maintenance effort from the template creators/maintainers to its users. It is true that the protein infoboxes are overlapping -- there's also Template:Infobox protein family and Template:Infobox enzyme, and the articles on proteins don't seem to be very consistent about when they refer to one specific protein and when they refer to a family, in which case linking a specific organism is common but technically wrong. But sorting that out isn't really something that can be done without specific knowledge of the topic. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Opabinia regalis: I agree that the articles on proteins, protein families, and enzymes are often not as clear as they should be. To make the {{Infobox nonhuman protein}} a bit more general, I have added support for |HomoloGene=. That way if a single {{Infobox nonhuman protein}} is meant to represent a family, at least a link to the orthologs can be provided. This lack of clarity is not really caused by the templates, but rather the lead sentence of the articles that should make clear (but sometimes doesn't) the scope of the article. One example that is fairly clear is Albumin (protein family), Serum albumin (human protein and orthologs that exist in other species), and Bovine serum albumin (one specific non-human protein). Granted, there is a certain amount of overlap between this articles, but I think this is unavoidable. Concering the lead sentence in Gene Wiki articles, as discussed here and here, we have tried to make clear that these articles are not only about the human gene/protein, but also orthologs that exist in other species. The wording that was reached through consensus is perhaps a little awkward, but it is both accurate and concise:

<recommended UniProt name> is a protein that in humans is encoded by the <approved HUGO gene symbol> gene.

The "that" in the above sentence is non-limiting implying that the protein (and gene) exists in other species besides human. Boghog (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this (and the other changes below) is a good idea, and I think the genewiki wording does a good job. For purposes of this merger proposal, the issue is that some but not all families will have specific members worthy of their own articles, and trying to manage that with just one single integrated template with an |Organism= switch is going to create more issues than it solves. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why is |IUPHAR_id= an option for non-human proteins since the documentation implies its only use is for human proteins? Likewise why |Symbol= or |AltSymbols=? This seems, to a non-biologist, to be a source of confusion for editors. SBaker43 (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @SBaker43: Good point about |IUPHAR_id=. I have therefore removed it from both the {{Infobox nonhuman protein}} documentation and template code. Also good point about |Symbol= and |AltSymbols=. I have therefore also modified the {{Infobox nonhuman protein}} documentation to recommend that UniProt which is not limited to human gene/proteins be consulted instead of the human specific HUGO. Boghog (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Boghog and Opabinia regalis. Merging disparate topics (human vs non-human) into one infobox will confuse some editors about what is needed. Template simplification is useful for template maintainers; increased complexity for editors and cleanup of instantiation errors is not advantageous to article editors.
SBaker43 (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The benefit of this merge is that wikipedia has one less template page...
The cost of doing this type of merge is that: (1) it adds complexity with a combined template; and (2) it requires time/work on the part of some editor to recode of one of these templates for an unnecessary merge (i.e., this is a waste of time). Just to point out, I could put every template I've ever made on exactly 1 template page and use WP:SELECTIVETRANSCLUSION to call each distinct template alone from that one page. I don't do that because it would be a giant cluttered mass in the source code and the documentation would look retarded (the point being: merging for the sole sake of grouping content as proposed is not a good reason to merge content). I mean, why not just selectively transclude every infobox on wikipedia from exactly 1 template page? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 11:04, 1 February 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 Election Campaign[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 merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Election Campaign (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (Single use, despite being created over seven years ago.)

Template:Infobox Iranian election campaign (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (Only four transclusions, despite being created nearly five years ago.)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Election Campaign with Template:Infobox Iranian election campaign.
No need for separate templates. Possibly no need at all - we could delete both in favour of, say, {{Infobox election}} or {{Infobox event}}. The Iranian template has no Iran-specific parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge in favour of {{Infobox Election Campaign}}. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:15, 2 February 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:Professional titles[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) 01:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Professional titles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

For deletion - A grab-bag of random job titles, from military enlisted ranks to abbots to Members of the Scottish Parliament to nurses. I can see no real helpfulness in maintenance or navigation. Undefined inclusion criteria. It is also substantially redundant to more narrow templates, like Template:Health pro, Template:Corporate titles, Template:Catholic Church Hierarchy, Template:Usul al-fiqh, etc. Neutrality^talk 01:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator Neutrality's rationale above. This really is a random and incoherent collection of unrelated "titles" per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Also, per the five evaluation criteria of WP:NAVBOX, this template fails at least three of those criteria, to wit:

1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject;

2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article; and

. . .

4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. . . .

Bottom line: this template does not serve a valid navigation purpose among closely related topics. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:48, 31 January 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:Chinese Communist Party[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) 00:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chinese Communist Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created by 彭家杰 (talk · contribs), who does not appear to have any interest in engaging in productive discussion or does not speak English. I find that many Chinese prty related articles are getting extremely unwieldy because of the large number of templates placed on them, and in any case this template is duplicated by the template [[Template:Politics of China]]. The Politics of China template mentions everything mentioned in this template, is tidier and mentions other areas as well; such as government, judiciary, ideology and so on. --TIAYN (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since I am the nominator. --TIAYN (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator. Jackninja5 (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, template is duplicated by Template:Politics of China which is far more comprehensive. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:49, 31 January 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.