Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Spinster (talk | contribs) at 12:16, 1 March 2021 (→‎Template:ACArt: delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< February 25 February 27 >

February 26

Template:WikiProject Kangleipak

Abortive attempt to create a WikiProject page in Template space. Unused, no useful history. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 22:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ACArt

Recent and redundant fork of {{Authority control}}, to which any missing art-related identifiers should be added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not a redundant fork. We are not supposed to be an indiscriminate collection of all possible identifiers. The template has been discussed at ANI, no objections were forthcoming.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion at ANI (link?) is irrelevant. ANI is not TfD, and deals with matters requiring administrator intervention (which template forks generally are not) only. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. "Recent" is hardly relevant. I agree that all missing art-related identifiers should be added to Authority Control, as no identifiers are added to ACArt at all. All ACArt does is hide a number of less relevant identifiers for most art-related articles, and only show the ones that are most useful, using Authority Control. For example, at Pablo Picasso, this reduced the 43 identifiers (rough count to 17: so still plenty of identifiers, but just keeping these with most relevance for art and/or enwiki. As no real, accurate argument has been formulated why this would need deletion, and the deletion reason shows a misunderstanding of what happens with the template, I think this can be speedy kept. Fram (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even more reason to delete it, then, since it seems this is just an attemt to run around your failed attempt to delete {{Authority control}}. There is no need to hide identifiers; and those hidden by this template are not "less relevant" - or do we have no articles on, (for example) Spanish, Catalan, or Australian artists? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Basic misunderstanding of the template purpose. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not a redundant fork, because it is a wrapper template rather than a fork in the first place. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant fork. Gamaliel (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Unnecessary fork of {{Authority control}}. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Serves no useful purpose.14GTR (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why on earth are we thrusting this machine-readable metadata gibberish in the faces of readers? Ideally keep it on wikidata where it belongs, or bury it in an infobox if you must, or the talk page, where it can safely be ignored.

    Case in point: Vincent van Gogh is "BNF: cb11927591g (data)BPN: 32545490, 31473481GND: 118540416KulturNav: 2192c545-cc43-43b4-8abd-1cd22af701dcLCCN: n79022935NLA: 35130087RKD: 32439SNAC: w60g3k35SUDOC: 027176207ULAN: 500115588VIAF: 9854560WorldCat Identities: lccn-n79022935"

    What? Theramin (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Theramin:; the template ACArt is an attempt to reduce the amount of gibberish: while it keeps the poor formatting (another aspect I want to improve one day), it tries to make sure that you get less of it, and that you no longer get the ones that are not useful for the subject of the article on enwiki (they are useful on Wikidata, and on some other language-wiki, but not here). Fram (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you wish to reduce the number of identifiers we use, raise an RfC. Template forking as fait accompli is not the way to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that we had some policy that decreed that all IDs available in Authority Control have to be shown on all pages. IDs are added all the time on the basis of a discussion between very few people at the template talk page (fine), but creating a wrapper which makes the template more focused for specific groups of articles is not allowed? No identifiers are being removed from authority control (never mind from Wikidata), but that doesn't mean that all of them have to be shown (when available) on all pages. Fram (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' Per Fram; much less crufty than the full one. I see no editors who actually add content in this area want to delete. Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • People are arguing for deletion (or merging, no idea how that would be done) because on the one hand it is a "redundant" or "unnecessary" fork, and on the other hand because it is an end run around the failed deletion of the main template. Obviously, it can be one or none of these, but it can hardly be both at the same time. Since ACArt is fully dependent on authority control, it is hardly an end run: deletion of authority control would make ACArt worthless, and ACArt shows AC identifiers, only not as many. So not an attempt to delete the template through the backdoor (like I said, something like Auguste Rodin now shows about 17 IDs, roughly half of what it showed before. Which also shows that it isn't a redundant fork, it has clearly different results, a different output. It is now used on some 8000+ pages, including many high-profile ones, and the editors of these pages seem either not to care or to approve. The template obviously still can be improved (which I plan to do this week), but deletion seems unawarranted. Fram (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note; the template has been somewhat improved to now allow the addition of specific IDs for one country (e.g. the National Library of Japan can be shown for Japanese artists, but hidden for others). More improvements of the template are welcome! Fram (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Speaking as an art historian and someone who works in the cultural sector: it is extremely useful for people like me to have a comprehensive selection of links to external datasets about an artist on Wikipedia. A comprehensive selection helps to demonstrate an artist's worldwide influence (or lack thereof). The links to authority control databases are a jumping board to other resources, usually via national libraries. Its comprehensiveness enhances Wikipedia's reputation as a trustworthy and useful resource for art history and in the cultural sector in general, especially as no other resources around the world provide this comprehensive interlinking. Reversely, if Wikipedians start making subjective selections of identifiers that are deemed OK and others that are deemed not, that's not doing Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral resource any good. Spinster (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1986 South American Team of the Year

Fails much of WP:NAVBOX, #4: There doesn't seem to be any content on this team of the year (ie this is completely unreferenced) . #2 the player articles generally don't mention that they were in this team of the year (except in this navbox) #3 they don't mention each other generally. In fact the template seems to be treated as some sort of award banner, which is not what navboxes are about. Content perhaps comes from http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/sam-toy.html or something similar. Nigej (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - these types of navboxes can be notable, but I see nothing that indicates this is. Not part of a series, no link to any articles etc. Creator has a track record of questionable templates. GiantSnowman 20:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Myanmar township templates

List of red links with no reasonable chance of ever becoming an article. Bot created. The Banner talk 11:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC) style="color:green">The Banner]] talk 11:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_26&oldid=1009609704"