Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 22 September 24 >

September 23[edit]

Template:Royal Jains[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).

The result of the discussion was Relist at Oct 20. Primefac (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template clutter. "Royal" Jains is not a pertinent classification for this mix of mythological and historical figures. The latter group especially needs to be handled with greater care, since their actual religion of the millennia old rulers is often indeterminate and it is only various non-contemporaray, contradictory, and disputed/dubious partisan accounts that claim that the ruler belonged or converted to their religion (see discussion at Talk:Ashoka/Archive1#Religion).

Everything useful in the template is already covered in {{Jainism topics}} (though that too may need a clean up). Also see discussion at user talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I created this template to bring together the scattered information about Jain Kings on Wikipedia. Here[1] is a source for reference. Another source from Oxford chapter 12 Paul Dundas-- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 20:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Capankajsmilyo: Can you explain how Dundas's writings in the A non-imperial religion? support rather than undermine any justification for this template?! (Justice Tukol is of course not a reliable source on the topic of history). Abecedare (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This one is a more clear source[2] -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As adviced before, can you specify what exactly you are citing Dundas and Sangave as sources for? Also keep in mind, this earlier note about Sangave as a source. Abecedare (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Citing these sources for the Kings listed in template to be Jains, not whole dynasty but some kings of that dynasty. The link you refer talks about facets of Jainism the one I shared is shravanabelagola. These are two different books. Sangave talks about Jain patronage citing inscriptions and architecture under their rule. I guess that is considered as archaeological/historical. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But Dundas, which is a reliable source, makes no such claim (he instead laments the lack of significant royal patronage for Jainism) and the sociologist Sangave is not a reliable source for history. In any case, instead of trying to present sources for individual entries in the template, can you provide a specific source that "Royal Jains is a pertinent classification for such a mix of mythological and historical figures" ? Abecedare (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The web page that is being used has several inaccuracies. User Capankajsmilyo should be using books written by well known historians. I have left a message on this user talk page regarding this.Holenarasipura (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neither useful nor reliable.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Tukol, T. K., Jainism in South India
  2. ^ Sangave, Vilas Adinath (1981), The Sacred Sravana-Belagola: A Socio-religious study, Bharatiya Jnanpith
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).

Template:Sailing Olympic Podium[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).

The result of the discussion was Relist at Oct 20. Primefac (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need for such a complicated template to set up something easy as tables of Olympic medalists. Propose substitution. Smartskaft (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The need is in the consistency as well as the maintenance of the information. This information is available at at several places e.g.:
Keeping the template will:
  • Minimize the number of discrepancies in the different lists
  • Minimize the corrections that must be made if there are ambigue links to names of athletes
  • Reduce the number of typo's
  • gives consistency in the spelling of names
  • And why changing something that works fine and create extra work as well that it initiates new errors.
Substitution of this template would create:
  • a) a huge amount of work to recreate these pages (almost 50 class page + over 30 Sailing at the Summer Olympic pages + the lists: sailing by discipline and sailing by class)
  • b) initiates discrepanties between the information caused by typo's or different spelling of names,
  • c) more work after each Olympic edition to get it all right and
  • d) When an athlete has an ambigu name it has to be changes at several places. Now at only one.
_/)_/)_/) ˷˷˷˷˷˷˷˷ _/) NED33talk 05:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This takes all of the information and buries it inside an undocumented complex template, thus making it more difficult to maintain as an editor would need to wade through template code to make changes, and many editors are not familiar with templates. As for various medal tables appearing in multiple articles, the maintenance for what are in the end simple medal tables is rather small. -- Whpq (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete this encumbers Wikipedia, possibly breaking complexity limits in articles. It is undocumented so it makes Wikipedia Olympic sailing articles a walled garden for select editors. 100kB templates for this is extreme. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To modify the template once every four years you only need to copy e.g. the 2012 section and past it to the next Olympiad. Change the Host city, classes and winners. How complex can it be. This in comparison with adding at least 13 tables on 13 pages. With all risks of discrepanties between them. In order to make it even more easy I will already add the sections 2016 - 2040 so that only the actual data has to be added._/)_/)_/) ˷˷˷˷˷˷˷˷ _/) NED33talk 11:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To add the tables once every four years you only need to copy the last Olympic's tables and paste it to the current Olympics articles and change the winners. How complex can it be? Seriously, these tables are dead simply structures having only to enumerate gold silver and bronze placements. And as yourself have pointed out, this need only be done once very 4 years. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you exceed the complexity limit, a page will not render completely so it breaks Wikipedia as the page will not appear properly -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Document the template - In stead of discussing the possible deletion, and with the deletion losing valuable info, since I do not expect that the deletor will also create the than missing tables from 1900 till 2012 in about 50 classes, 30 Olympic pages and some more, we better discuss the documentation of the template. _/)_/)_/) ˷˷˷˷˷˷˷˷ _/) NED33talk 07:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after suitable replacement. way too complex. Frietjes (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just this weekend user:Niceguyedc disambiguate Peder Lunde. One simple change and in all relevant tables it was corrected, without the knowledge about what tables were ambique, at the same time. That is what I call good maintainability and consistency! Vintage Yachting Games (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)— Vintage Yachting Games/Dragon Genoa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • But that template doesn't account for much of any of the incoming links to what is now Peder Lunde, Sr.. User Smartskaft changed standard links in about 15 places, and all done quickly without much fuss so I fail to see what advantage this template provides. -- Whpq (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, it seems that the template is working fine. Changing it will be extra work for someone without providing better or more consisten or just better information. It covers now information of over 100 years. Suppose that deleting the template is chosen the "benefit" of the adding in the future simpel tables will be reached far beyond 2100. This will hardly give solid business case for deletion.Dragon Genoa (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Note to admin: user:Dragon Genoa is the same editor as user:Vintage Yachting Games due to a name change for user name compliance. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Whpq: Sorry that I am interfering in your game! I'm an observer for a long time and only recently with an own account, of articles about Olympic sailing her sailors and classes. But also very anxious that good information will vaporize because of this kind of almost religious discussions. I was triggered by the "See TfD" remark that disturbs/ruins the result all tables at this moment! Dragon Genoa (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Explain what you mean by "game". -- Whpq (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How is it working fine? You completely ignore my point above. As far as I can tell, the template did next to nothing for simplifying the disambiguation for Peder Lunde to Peder Lunde Sr. as it only had any effect at Sailing at the 1952 Summer Olympics, and 5.5 Metre (keelboat); so it reduced the maintenance from two places to one place. Meanwhile, there were 15 other places which the template cannot account for. Curiously, Smartskaft methodically changed all the links except for the template which Niceguyedc; could itr be that burying in a template caused him to miss it? Furthermore, this template violates the very firt guideline from "Wikipedia:Template namespace"; namely "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content". So I ask again how this seems to be working. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The template does exactly were it is designed for. It places, when called, the names of the appopriate Olympic Sailing Medalists in the specified class and year with consistend names and consistend format. No more no less. It is not designed to manage all links to a certain person. e.g. King Constantin as Olympic medalist is handled fine by the template. All other references to the king's name are not a part of the scope of the template so that information must be handled otherwise. A simple template like this will not lead to 'Worldpeace';-)
That consistency in names is important, specially for results, follows from the following example: The spelling of the name of a Sovjet/Russian sailor is done differently in the official documentation of four consecutives games:
  • Georgi Chaiduoko 1988
  • Gueorgi Shaidouko 1992
  • Georgy Shayduko 1996
  • Georgi Shayduco 2000
The template gives one spelling!
The use of a template for this purpose can allways be argued. However since this template handles over 100 year of Olympic sailing history fine. I this was my money to spent I would not invest in changing this. We do not know if Wikipedia makes it 100 years from now, nor we do not know that of the Olympic Committee or Sailing at the Olympics. Personally I think that most of that history is there now. I would rather that people invest time and effort in getting more/better information in the history of Sailing at the yyyy Olympics.
Dragon Genoa (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do if a template is used or not, but romanization. George Shayduko has the most google hits, sports-reference uses Georgy Shayduko and WP:RUS prefers Georgy Shayduko, therefore the article is under that name. Just as Whpq suggested, the disambiguation tool I was using (common one) didn't manage to find the pages hidden in the template, so you cannot say it's working fine for this purpose. Smartskaft (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for confirming what I suspected. This template is actually makimg it more difficult to maintain information because it hides content in template code instead of placing it in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not play innocent here! It doesn't suit you! You were able without any issues to modify the template in the past so you knew the existence and have the knowledge and skills to understand and work with it! e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Sailing_Olympic_Podium&oldid=653508240 '21:29, 25 March 2015‎ Smartskaft (talk | contribs)'
Regards, _/)_/)_/) ˷˷˷˷˷˷˷˷ _/) NED33talk 11:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the fact that he removed inappropriate flag icons from the template mean that he has memorized the contents and knows to go hunting inside the template for a link on an article name change? -- Whpq (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There have been statements that somehow, all the existing information would be lost with the deletion of this template. Not so, as it would be substituted before deletion. There has also been concern expressed with the "cost" of going through and doing this. If the result of this discussion is to delete after substitution, I will undertake to do the necessary substitution work. -- Whpq (talk) 19:08, 5 October 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).

Template:Kayau/Template:Disturbing[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).

The result of the discussion was Template does not exist. If the template linked contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer template. Wikipedia:No_disclaimers_in_articles a CLoG? | unCLoG 05:02, 23 September 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).

Template:Spam-warn[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).

The result of the discussion was  Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 29#Template:Spam-warn. Gparyani (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Spam-warn with Template:Db-spam-notice.
Don't see why there is a need for this separate template, as Template:Db-spam-notice also exists for the exact same criterion (generic G11). The latter template is better, as it uses the global Template:Db-notice unlike the former, and the latter is more common, as it is used by Twinkle. Gparyani (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the former per nominator. Spam-warn contains some meaningful text not mentioned inn Db-spam-notice, which would warrant merging, but it can't work because Spam-warn doesn't use the default {{db-notice}} template, while Db-spam-notice does. --TL22 (talk) 20:06, 18 September 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_23&oldid=1074062761"