Knowledge (XXG):Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 16

2864:, I agree with the position put forth by the anonymous user. Besides notifying editors of the potential traffic and hence editing surge, the template serves as a reminder that a notable site chose to link to wikipedia. If increased traffic doesn't increase editing, it's not a "who cares" situation, but rather why. Why hasn't the increased traffic induced editing; is the article that good, or is it something else. The template serves as a record of why there may have been a spike in traffic and that a notable website linked to wikipedia. 2378:(see update below). I looked at a couple of dozen examples of its use and none were any newer than 2008. The supposed purpose of this tag, per the previous discussions about it, was to warn editors of potential vandalism due to an article's temporary high profile. In theory it would be removed when the traffic died down. Instead it has become a pointless historical marker about links from sites that now get significantly less traffic than Knowledge (XXG) itself. So Slashdot linked to such-and-such article in 2005. Big whoop. -- 4611:- While I do believe that it may have been premature to have created the templates, I also believe that deleting them now would be pointless. Given that both singers have highly-anticipated albums to be released in November and along with that singles (including one to be released by Kris mere hours from now), it is only a matter of time before their templates would be populated. Deleting them now would be worthless since they would definitely be necessary in the very near future.-- 2815:

who cares? Also, there's no evidence that the template is "heavily used". It seems to go onto pages occasionally, then linger there indefinitely, longer after its supposed purpose has been served. If you go to the list of transclusions and start clicking randomly, almost every use is from 2008 or earlier. If it were being used the way that was supposedly intended, most uses would be for recent incidents. --

3802:. After having been solicited for clarifications by the nominator, I hereby acknowledge that this template has map-related issues that desperately need to be fixed. I would not have opposed deletion of this template if it were to be replaced by a Bangladesh district-specific infobox template addressing those issues. I do, however, still oppose deletion of this template if it is to be replaced by 1975:. As much as I appreciate standardization, I definitely have doubts about standardizing so many templates that are so visible and so widely used into a single, relatively untested template. I could support a more cautious approach to reducing the number of different hatnote templates. For example, first combine 843:

Someone should merge the icons into the other template before considering deletion. The template documentation doesn't seem to mention the Moon or Mars. Even after the merge, a "coor Moon" and "coor Mars" should exist as shortcut templates. Perhaps, with coding to select the world that it should use.

3460:

The people who opposed only did so out of sour grapes, because their own templates were threatended previously. Both have failed to acknowledge that by inisting we keep the only template we are retaining inaccurate information about actual district location when they should be replaced with accurate

2425:

impliment the change. In the meantime, identify as many related templates as possible and put a banner at the top of each saying something like "consider using one of these similar templates instead." This is one of those templates that deserve more discussion than a not-widely-advertised TfD will

2226:

This template seems to be of questionable usefulness these days. It was created when Knowledge (XXG) was mostly unknown, and being linked from a website like Slashdot would cause a sudden spike in the traffic to an article; but these days, Knowledge (XXG) is one of the highest-trafficked (and widely

3666:

is already overbloated enough without trying to make it fit every possible division type "below the level of a country" out there. I mean, c'mon, why stop at "the level of a country" at all? Why not just rename "Infobox Settlement" to "Infobox Whatever" and use it for whatever infobox needs folks

2748:

is supposed to be the place where consensus is sought on removing or deprecating a simple template. If there were some larger process involved (for example, as there would be for templates widely used for citations), then I could understand involving a different forum. But this is a single template

529:

The template has five wikilinks in it and is currently only used on one page, the band's article. The template is the band's discography that would be all redlinks if the albums/songs were actually linked. Since the template is only used on the band's article to be a discography when that article

2814:

Except that the presumed traffic spike from Bing hasn't produced any uptick in editing on the article. The whole idea was to warn editors about a possible upsurge in editing, hence the link to the article's revision history that the template produces. If a traffic spike doesn't affect the article,

1858:

and permanently protected. Thus, if you replace all of them for a one-size-fits all, global template, it would be used on a significant majority of articles here. And since it consists of a very large #switch parserFunction, it would be a little more difficult to maintain since there is a greater

4567:

Fine, I get it comparisons with her is futile, but I still insist on keeping the articles up until a week after their album releases, if no new article is added to the templates after that then maybe they could be deleted but since the albums are already scheduled for release and would probably

3173:

While I have no opinion either way on this template, surely the onus is on the proponents for deletion to clearly demonstrate that the proposed replacement does cater for all aspects of the existing template and not vice versa. In addition, Donama seems to me to be making the case that specific

2734:. Although I still think complete deletion is justified, in the spirit of developing a consensus I am willing to shift my position to support designating this template as a historical artifact (so it can stay on existing pages where it is in use), but deprecating any new use in favor of 295:

There is nothing on the template's documentation identifying it with that or any other project; indeed, that project does not even link to the template, such is its members' apparent disinterest. This discussion is open to all interested parties, and advertised on the template page.

4441:

In summary, the templates have 7 things in them, not all linked, and not all deserving of links, some of the links being tenuous; linking an artist's record label seems a bit far-fetched for me - Jive and RCA are not notable because of these two signings, nor vice versa.

912:

That directly contradicts what is listed in the "purpose" statement of the template. It says it is for use on *Earth*, so anyone reading the template documentation will not see the Moon option, since it says it's about the Earth and directs people to use the Sky template.

3252:, I havent canvassed I advised people that process is under way, that process is the replacement of localised template in favour of a globalise template which uses US terminology/spelling this process occurred without prior discussion. oh and you seem to be stalking me. 2799:

is great for notifying when an article has been linked from a newspiece of some sort...but not a general front page link from a site. Well...I'm an anonymous editor...I'm interested to see what the entrenched wikipedian community comes to in the future if they keep this

1230:

to name a few. I'm not saying put this template on all the actors' pages, I just want to insert them into the template listed above. If not, there a likely hundreds of templates that need to have this information removed, including the above listed ones to start.

2978:

Template such for a several Bangladeshi districts. Should be converted to standard Infobox settlement per the upazila previous nomination. The only good thing is the map showing districts, ideally we need specific maps highlighting the actual district location..

2003:

the experience of lesser combinations shows that it can work. So I don't mind keeping this template around to possibly proceed with such experimentation, but that is not an endorsement of any quick replacement of the other templates with this one.

1245:

I think you have to discuss in Heroes project from adding a list of actors in the template (this is not exactly merging). I think there is an ongoing discussion somewhere (I 'll try to find it) about the presence of actors in these navboxes. --

2663:. This template serves no purpose other then to act as a badge for pages related to topics that have a web presence. In the early days of wikipedia this served as a warning to potential vandalism on a page but now this is not the case. 2074:

Thank you for the suggestion, but there is a procedural impediment: I am not an admin, and if this template were to become widely used, prudence would dictate that it be fully protected, meaning that I could no longer work on it. —

3983:

This navbox mainly links to 3 articles that are already well linked to each other. For the second line of the navbox: There is a consensus not to connect actor because they appeared to the same show, specially when the show is over!

3501:

on principle that the multitude of settlement template deletion discussions is being handled in an ass-backwards manner. Put together an RFC and hash out in a centralized discussion forum whether the community in general wants

201:

184:. Not only are these used in a minimal number of articles, many of the available fields aren't filled in. There doesn't appear to be anything in these four instances that couldn't go into the more general template. -- 4684:

ing them since in about one-and-half-months, their albums would be released allowing new material to be added to the templates and in turn making the process of deleting and recreating their templates unecessary and

2776:

doesn't do the job for links that aren't used in an article. This template is heavily used and is very useful in identifying traffic spikes in otherwise obsecure articles. Take for example today, September 23, when

2227:

linked-to) sites on the internet itself. I'm not sure it has any value to note that one of our articles has been linked by a high-traffic website these days; when it is, we have more specific templates, like

944:

It needs a fairly large rewrite. The quick-guide needs to be rewritten as well, since it is definitely Earth-only. Exactly what are the coordinate systems used for the other planets, since it certainly isn't

1421:

Although the actors are connected with the show, they don't have much in common with each other. It wouldn't make sense to navigate between cast members of shows, characters of course, but not cast members.

3271:

per Gnangarra, this is one of many deletions proposals that were not discussed on the relevant WikiProject. We should allow various templates to have a regional flavour rather than forcing conformity

2021:

This is the wrong venue to have this type of discussion since the template's creator's intention is to essentially make a proposal to modify a Knowledge (XXG) policy or guideline, specifically

3556:

are you referring to? In fact, the process by which these multitude of templates are being nominated for deletion without having previously established any general community support for using

256:

are you referring to? In fact, the process by which these multitude of templates are being nominated for deletion without having previously established any general community support for using

42: 37: 2833:

it from everything over a month old, and add categiories to the template "Articles linked from high traffic websites on X" to strictly enforce this. Older examples can be replaced with

1304:

notable (or even just all major) shows would have these templates. Add films to the list (Hey, shows get the template, so why not films?) and we end up with navigation template chaos. --

4811: 2603:

as this basically restates what I said above. IMHO it doesn't have to be an RFC, just any mechanism that will solicit ideas from all interested parties then seek a consensus outcome.

4793: 1854:

template, then I'm very hesitant to support you. The templates that you intend to replace are each widely used in about an average of over 65,000 or more pages, and thus are all very

4764: 4385:- Kris Allen is possibly going to release a new single in at least two weeks (at most in a month) so he does deserve a template plus he had a notable song not released as a single.-- 4019:- I'm not sure where the 'consensus' that Magioladitis refers to comes from. We have plenty of navigational templates connecting the actors who appeared in a television show: e.g. 2970: 1444:

Such templates are becoming simply too proliferate and take away from adding relevant content to actual articles. There's nothing here that can't be found on the Heroes article.

3465:. This template does not have the capacity to include these maps and is redundant and lcearly inferior to the specific example I gave of the infobox settlement with proper map. 2952: 826:. Looks like a good case for standardization to me. Also, I fixed the tfdlinks for the "Moon" template based on the diff you provided. If I got it wrong please fix my "fix". -- 3975: 3121:. A "one size fits all" approach does not necessarily work globally and adds a large overhead without necessarily allowing for vagaries of specific regions around the world. 132: 4345:- But Kris is gonna release a CD by the end of September so it's early but not that too early. I created the Adam template cause his fans might be jealous of favoritism.-- 3957: 114: 548:. Four articles is not enough to justify a navbox, and a non-linked discography list is just that: a list, which is article content that should not be in a template. -- 2037:. There, discussions about its use and how it can be tested can take place, especially in light of the recent update yesterday to the software on all Wikimedia sites. 4152:

be for connect directly related articles. These actors realistically only have this TV show in common which is such a small facet of the person and the article.

4066:

Per Robofish. Templates for shows that include a list of the main stars or creators are very common, and imo useful to readers, which is he most important thing.

2054:

per comments regarding proper forum, but with the request that the template author bring up their proposed policy change at the proper forum reasonably soon. --

1874:

because they are seen most often by new Wikipedians, and thus in a way allows them to learn how to use the basics of templates. By replacing them with this new

141: 4427:- What are you talking about? Adam has 4 links and 3 non-links, yes but Kris has 5 links and 2 non links with one of them potentially becoming one by Monday.-- 1374:

actors from that show (not recurring cast as we've seen in some navboxes nominated recently). So in the list of examples Ejfetters gave above, I'm fine with

313:

It is never a bad idea to double-check with a relevant WikiProject just in case; it's only polite and often can save a lot of grief and bickering later on.—

4320: 2218: 1867:, I would expect that changes to this single global template would not become visible in all these millions of pages for several weeks or even months. 4302: 4128: 4127:

TfD above. If you discount the actor articles, then there just aren't enough articles to justify a navbox. Also, the cast are all easily found in the

2200: 1163: 4284: 1145: 3812:

for the same reasons explained in my "keep" vote above. I urge the closing administrator to consider this comment a part of my "keep" vote above.—

898:

Indeed, to me it would be a bad idea to do so before there is agreement to migrate - another reason why TfD needs to move away from the "D"-word.

4266: 1404:

seems a bit thin as a navbox if you don't count the cast. But I can't think of any case where a separate navbox for just the cast is warranted. --

754: 4456:

There's already a precedent, on record labels. The are usually included in templates but the templates are not usually added in those articles.--

21: 3174:

templates allow for more flexibility and less unwanted "overhead" than a generic template. Perhaps you may consider addressing this as well. --

4328:

It's just simply way too early for this. Let's wait until they actually releases a CD. :) There is barely more here than the AI8 template has.

736: 280:. I don't believe this template in its current state is particularly valuable or useful, but it worries me that something as basic as asking 2681:

to identify potential targets for vandalism. However, we are now more capable in dealing with high-volume vandalism. At the very least,

4520: 4475: 4443: 4409: 4163: 3788: 3746: 3714: 3615: 3588: 3541: 3442: 3411: 3296: 3240: 3189: 3165: 3077: 3057: 3022: 2844: 2686: 2583: 1903: 1433: 1012: 979: 950: 936: 914: 899: 890: 845: 814: 592: 575: 521: 358: 325: 305: 241: 166: 17: 2801: 2570: 2512: 2356: 2286: 714: 503: 1171:

Inappropriate. We don't connect actors with navboxes because it happened for some years of their careers to appear in the same show.

2567: 696: 3427:- The debate here is whether a particular region could have their own templates or whether a globalized template should be used.-- 1604: 1042:

unless there is something very special that only those templates can do that Coord cannot be easily modified to also accomplish.

1586: 4787: 3104:

on this page, the work done on the locator maps does indeed make the replacement superior to the original. Good work, dude! —

1056: 324:

This shouldn't be held against anyone. If one side says "Nobody told us", the other inevitably says "nobody asked me to".

2946: 2615: 2438: 2316: 2084: 1929: 1821: 1762: 4783: 4735: 3951: 3231:, based on a false premise ("globalised templates using terminology and spelling that isnt consistant with the region"). 108: 3829: 3466: 3140: 2991: 2026: 375: 4873: 4751: 4725: 4228: 4198: 3919: 3893: 2914: 2888: 2162: 2136: 2107:

exists (B) The whole point of the discussion would be to decide whether to even use the template in the first place! --

1548: 1522: 1103: 1077: 653: 629: 466: 440: 76: 4858: 4840: 4833: 4776: 4708: 4672: 4653: 4620: 4591: 4560: 4528: 4510: 4483: 4465: 4451: 4436: 4417: 4394: 4375: 4354: 4332: 4249: 4183: 4166: 4140: 4110: 4081: 4058: 4011: 3993: 3940: 3876: 3840: 3806: 3792: 3754: 3717: 3687:: "should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other 3660: 3636: 3623: 3609: 3596: 3578: 3560: 3544: 3520: 3506: 3491: 3483:

Don't accuse other editors of "sour grapes" or questions their motives just because you have a difference of opinion.

3477: 3450: 3436: 3419: 3391: 3362: 3339: 3324: 3310: 3299: 3279: 3259: 3243: 3222: 3197: 3179: 3168: 3151: 3130: 3113: 3094: 3080: 3060: 3042: 3030: 3015: 3002: 2942: 2935: 2898: 2873: 2852: 2824: 2809: 2758: 2723: 2694: 2672: 2655: 2625: 2591: 2574: 2542: 2518: 2482: 2448: 2401: 2387: 2362: 2326: 2292: 2246: 2183: 2119: 2088: 2066: 2046: 2013: 1964: 1933: 1911: 1893: 1825: 1807: 1787: 1766: 1624: 1569: 1507: 1470: 1453: 1436: 1413: 1341: 1312: 1292: 1276: 1255: 1240: 1180: 1128: 1062: 1020: 983: 958: 939: 922: 907: 893: 853: 835: 817: 679: 600: 583: 557: 539: 486: 423: 386: 366: 351: 333: 308: 260: 244: 220: 206: 193: 169: 148: 97: 4408:- half the entries aren't links. Again, I'm giving serious thought to proposing "underpopulated navbox" as a CSD. 3947: 3903: 104: 60: 4296: 2338:

Thanks, davidwr - I have striken the first part of the statement, but the rest still fits in with what I think! --

2194: 1211: 1053: 2619: 2442: 2320: 1223: 1215: 4872: