Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 30

< August 29	August 31 >

August 30

Template:Milk by provenance

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. There does appear to be some consensus to merge this with {{milk substitutes}}, but that template was included in this discussion. So, closing as no consensus, but feel free to either (a) open a merger discussion here, or (b) discuss merger elsewhere, or (c) boldly merge the two templates. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Milk by provenance (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This does not provide navigation between a set of related articles; I don't think an editor reading Goat needs or expects links to Almond milk or Breast milk. The main thing is they are all milk but for that there's the category, Category:Milk, which is more comprehensive and complete than a template can ever be. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor reading Goat might read the part about the produces and see milk, and might like to nkow other milk-producing animals - or vegetals for the matter; moreover, a template can be read while reading an article by being inserted in it while a category have to be opened in another tab or window.

--Jean Po (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — If these articles were about the milk, it would be different, but this really should be handled by the category, or perhaps a list. I might be persuaded to support listify as an option. —PC -XT + 16:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From these articles, all excepted three, which redirect to subsections related to products,even if one of the three is a subsection about dairy products (horse, water buffalo and the aforementioned goat) are directly about the milks.

--Jean Po (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why we have categories, to link related articles, both directly and into the larger category scheme. Navigation templates are best for sets of closely related articles which form a recognisable set. Books by author X, for example, or articles on the history of a country. 'Milk' as a topic is too large and diverse for a navigation template; as well as the members of this template there are milk products, milk dishes, varieties such as Jersey Milk. It's also unclear where to draw the line on what to include. Camel milk seems OK but there's no article on Goat milk and Breast milk is very different - "breast" isn't really a provenance. Jersey Milk would seem a better fit under provenance, but then it should include all other regional and specialist varieties.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if to be merged or trimmed/renamed, but otherwise listify — Hmm, I didn't check enough of the links. (I was short on time, which is why I didn't make an official !vote.) I consider cow milk a redirect to the main article, milk, making 1 redirect, 3 section links, and 5 animal milk articles. That's actually enough for me. The others are included in {{Milk substitutes}}, and therefore are redundant. I would still support listification, but instead of deletion, I will suggest the possibility of a merge with {{Milk substitutes}} or removing those redundant links from this template, and renaming to something like animal milks, because many of those pages don't have a navbox. —PC -XT + 06:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC) My preference would be trim/rename, because it could be settled in this discussion, and would reduce the template's scope to basically mammalians with notable milk production. —PC -XT + 07:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems merging this template with {{Milk substitutes}} into a template giving different sorts of milks by vegetal or animal origin could be a good idea.--Jean Po (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2014 (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) 22:43, 30 August 2014 (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:Location map Kingdom of Hungary

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) 20:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Location map Kingdom of Hungary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used in any articles, and contrary to what the page says, the distortion caused by the incorrect projection is enough to cause significant error in point placement Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The location points are as of the old map. I made this into a four-colour map (about three years ago) – five if you included Lake Balaton in the blue but you don't need the blue, the counties around it will allow it to be one of the four, so that would be still in four colours.

The problem I had was, I got an old German map and I could not work out exactly the latitude and longitude of the four courners, I asked around and they are on the map but the Germans at that time might have been taking a latitude (but I think not a longitude) from somewhere not at Greenwich, but not Berlin either, so the latitudes for the map were a bit uncertain. I got a printout from somewhere and pinned it on my window (this was on A1 paper it covered the window) and tried to get it best I could but that would be in Mercator projection on this map, I think, and this is in I don't know a different geodesic projection.

The map is accurate in the wossname projection as much as the old one but is a four colour map instead of the boring grey map. It is the same map andd I coloured it but could not pick out the corners for the co-ords, I tried my hardest. I think I put Fiume a bit south.

But I don't think this should go but be corrected for lat and long at the corners. Then it would be good for a bit more colour than the boring brown maps on all the Hungarian articles for places. Therefore, I dispute the deletion.

I live in Hungary now so may have a better chance of getting decent coords.

Hence I say keep even though unused; it is unused because places ended up a bit to the west or east of where they should be. It was welcomed, at the time, and I took the template coords from the old template but never could quite shuffle them to fit. It does no harm, let it stand. Thank you for reminding me, once we check the coords it will be useful and we can run a bot to replace them. The four corners were out and I never got them reconciled. Si Trew (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any use of this would be doing harm, since a map with points in the wrong place is worse than no map. Also, just getting the corner coordinates isn't enough to fix it - the full details of the original projection would be needed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely: but the four-colour map I think would be more helpful than the one-colour map. Obvoiously I have to change the text sizes (they looked fine on my computer but came up rubbish on WP) but it is all in SVG so that is fairly simple to do, and I put in styles whatever for the fonts so that is a one-line change if zou could reduce the fonts a bit it would look much better. I did it all in the raw and tracked all the points. The counties (Hungarian: megyek all line up now on all their coords on the boundaries, andd the SVG has three layers with the county boundaries, and the fills, and the infills, which the old one does not infill the stretch to make it fit the map is the tricky bit as I don't know what map projection it is. But the same as the old one, just that I four colour filled it and moved so that each county has its own shape (which is labelled and filled) so we can then pick out a particular county and lose the others by dropping them out. I spent days on this, the only trouble I had was lining up the coords for the edges of the map – believe me I tried. If you can try more, that would be great. Then this would likely be a template on about 2,500 Hungarian articles in their infoboxes. Si Trew (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may have got you wrong. The template maybe should go – though I should prefer it would be kept as it does no harm – the map should not go. If you could help improve it with coords then go ahead. Believe me, we have tried. The old map don't match up either. It puts Fiume far too far north, for example. That's why we got maps out the library, stuck them to the walls with a bit of masking tape and mensurated them with a sextant and using a steel 6 yard straightedge to try to get the best coords. We couldn't match em up. We did our best. But it does no harm and all the coords are on the SVG. Don't lose the SVG. Losing the template I think is wrong when it does no harm. If unused, patently it does no harm. Bytes are cheap. Si Trew (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it ever is used, though, it will do harm, since the points will all be in the wrong place, and there's no reason to keep a template that we won't ever use. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check that the coords on the old map template and the new map template are the same coords? It may be as simple as that. I know on the map they are. We could never work out why they didn't align. It might be that I cocked up the coords on the template itself. Si Trew (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the old one? Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was just about to ask.

it's all in brown and very boring.

I should be able to find it.

In the meantime may I thank you for this civilised and intelligent discussion. Rarely seen on Wikipedida these days.

Si Trew (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec from Jack?) I was also wondering how you were expecting to me to do fewer than a four colour map. It has been proved you need four. I did five to put Lake Balaton in blue, but used a colour that would go four if you notice it. Just chose to colour it blue for effect. Si Trew (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patently if it is disputed it is a keep. Sorry Jack I think I trod across your toes. But it is better sorted than deleted. It has been wonderful having this intelligent discussion, I don't get it very often. I need to go to bed – safe night or day to you all. Si Trew (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The fact that a template's creator disputes it doesn't mean it has to be kept, and I never said anything at all about too many colors. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't jack. I put on the talk page on its page, which I meant to put here, it has been nice to have an intelligent discussion for a change. But I am getting very tired it is 2am here and I have been up since 6am since excuse any errors. You can find the old map on the infobox on Arad County (former) but I can't find the former. Sorry but it is time for me to sleep now. I think once mine is cleaned up a bit it would look better than that. I have done all the borders in separate layers and you can take out just the lines for each border (they are named by county in the SVG) or take out all the counties (similarly named) or take out well, you get the point, you can pick and choose cos I did it properly. The original was just basically a scan in. But I think the coords are all right but I don't know where that original map was centred on. My stupidity or sleepiness means I can't find where that file is, I checked the infobox but I guess you have to jump through hoops to find the actual file. I can do that but not when I am nearly falling asleep at now 2.12am. Best wishes to you. Si Trew (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I don't live in Arad county, just it was kinda first on my list alphabetically. Believe me, we do a lot better on EN:WP than HU:WP where people argue all the time on what "should" be the truth than rather what "is" the truth. If the decision is delete the template, then delete it, I won't mind (well a little bit but not much). You may not believe so but you have brightened my evening more by having an intelligent discussion about it. But keep the map – one dday I will get the corners right. And that is why I say a strong keep since it will be used in infoboxes for many historical Hungarian articles once I get the coords right. Si Trew (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Perhaps userfy for further testing? —PC -XT + 08:29, 26 August 2014 (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) 22:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt userfying will do any good. The map is good and has the same coords as the SVG mentioned above, only better organized and in strictly clockwise order, duplicate points taken out etc (I fuzzed it saying it was a scan, but has probably beoen pen pointed by a geo person which is helpful if you know the map projection and if you know the edges of the map). It did have lat and long, and I have lost the map what with moving countries, and it is hard to align to any map projection I have, which is Mercator, Geodesic, Equatorial centrilateral, and various others, all are a bit out. Some are WAY out. I am quite happy to do 3D polar to Cartesian projections, do them all the time, but I struggled with this one. One would think that the centre of the map would be the centre of the projection but it isn't, and being fairly well North of the equator one can't use just a ruler on an A1 sheet to guess the curve on the line, as it is fairly straight at that latitude, the margin of error is too small to guess what curvature and hence what projection was intended. Too little information. But still the same map as before only more colourful, all we need to do is sort out the text and we're still better off than just all the counties in brown.

I appreciate this does not belong on the deletion page; I am unlikely to look at it on the page of the image itself, in which case I just delete the image. As usual, my antipathy to Wikipedia grows higher. Easy to criticise, harder to work. Si Trew (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep for now, we are working on fixing the issues. if we can't make it work, I will personally send it back to TfD. as far as I can tell, userfying won't help, since the templates/modules must be in the correct namespace. Frietjes (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, then —PC -XT + 02:14, 11 September 2014 (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:NONONO

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) 20:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary navbox as all articles link to and from each other thus offers no further aid in navigation. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep, connects 4 articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2014 (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) 22:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too soon for a template. The articles are so short that some merging could be done; the EP especially seems not notable enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:03, 6 September 2014 (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:PD-UN

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 deprecate Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-UN (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Following on from Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-UN : The Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 that is used to support this licence does not in fact meet the non-revocable requirement of a free licencee nor is the instruction enforceable against the UN. More importantly it also appears to have either been superseded, revoked or just ignored by the UN and it's agencies, here are just some of the copyright notices from some of their websites :

The UN's main website has this copyright notice;
The WHO website's copyright notice;
The UNICEF website also has one;
The UN's News and Multimedia website also makes it clear what the UN's position on copyright is when it says "Prior written permission is required to reproduce UN photos in print or electronic format"

Other alternative licences should be used. LGA _talk^edits 07:25, 19 August 2014 (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) 22:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecate as on Commons. New files with this copyright tag should be tagged with {{subst:nld}}. Old files should be migrated to other copyright tags or be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate per Stefan2 —PC -XT + 06:08, 1 September 2014 (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:TC stats landfall

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) 20:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TC stats landfall (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:TC stats first landfall (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:TC stats next landfall (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:TC stats no landfall (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per discussion on the Tropical Cyclone WikiProject talk page, landfalls are no longer used in the season chart tables. These should be orphaned and deleted. Netoholic @ 02:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are used. It's easier said than done just orphaning them. It takes a lot of time and effort to convert them. If you wish to, you're more than welcome in assisting completing them :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink - I'm a template guy, not a hurricane guy (besides, on principle I still support my other solution more). But, please leave a !vote here, as you were one of the people that said this landfall information is deprecated. -- Netoholic @ 04:03, 19 August 2014 (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, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink, if the decision here is to convert or something, the template will be moved to the appropriate list on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell, where people will help to do this. Would you like this help, or do you think it would be better for those who are more familiar with the subject area do this? Also, would it be possible for someone to give a summary of what needs to be done with them, and how you guys differ? I'm not sure if you both want them to be orphaned and replaced, and differ in the manner of accomplishing this, or if one of you wants to keep and update the templates, or if there is some other difference... —PC -XT + 03:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they should be orphaned, but the whole entire section should be deprecated. For example, the table used in 2003 Atlantic hurricane season has these templates in question, but it should be the one that's used in 2001 Atlantic hurricane season. The problem is that it's a lot of tedious effort to convert them. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so instead of using TC stats templates, the table should be as in the Season effects section. I think I am starting to see it, now. —PC -XT + 10:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecate, orphan and delete per above —PC -XT + 10:09, 2 September 2014 (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:Ravindra Prabhat

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) 04:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ravindra Prabhat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The content has been deleted in a deletion debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindi Blogging ka Itihas .Hence it has became redundant. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as premature, if not useless spam —PC -XT + 17:04, 6 September 2014 (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:Paleontology in Rio Grande do Sul

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) 04:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Paleontology in Rio Grande do Sul (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

excessive to have a navbox for articles based on the fact the corresponding flora/fauna were found in one part of Brazil. are we going to have one of these for every place where the corresponding flora/fauna were found? I can see this as a category, but a navbox is excessive. Frietjes (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2014 (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:Cities of Paleorrota

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) 04:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cities of Paleorrota (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

the parent article, Paleorrota, was deleted at AfD, so it seems this should go as well. even if the Paleorrota article still existed, it's not clear we would need a navbox to connect all the highways, cities, and sites inside the park. Frietjes (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —PC -XT + 16:45, 6 September 2014 (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.