Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 4

March 4

Template:Further

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

Template:See also2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Further with Template:See also2.
Hatnotes. Effect will be: hatnote will read "See also: ...", not "Further information: ...". Semantically they are the same. Reducing the hatnote text-variants is just plain simple.

{{further|[[TOPIC]], and [[TOPIC2]]}} →

Further information: [[:TOPIC, and TOPIC2]]

{{see also2|[[TOPIC]], and [[TOPIC2]]}} →

See also: TOPIC, and TOPIC2

Technically: both have the same structure, allowing free text for the 1st parameter. {{Further}} to become redirect, or botwise replacement. -DePiep (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Earlier TfD: 2007_May_11 (Keep). -DePiep (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: A related discussion is started here: {{see}}: change text into: See also: .... -DePiep (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The meanings are not the same. "See also" merely indicates a related article. "Further information" implies a stronger relation, more similar to {{main}}. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose "Further" has a specific meaning that is not indicated by see also. 65.94.45.238 (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Re Cybercobra and IP65: I must say, that's what I thought too until some days ago too. But just take a fresh look again: as a hatnote, the "Further information ..." says exactly the same as "See also...". Wherever used correctly in this encyclopedia, the essential hatnote information is not different, it only suggests so.

By definition, all hatnotes provide links to articles, and every link is related to the topic (section, sentence) it is mentioned in. Testing myself, I have browsed some dozen of links of "Further ...", and have not seen one occasion that that 'specific' meaning was required on that place. I even got less sensitive to a perceived different meaning. And sure {{main}} is different. -DePiep (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(1) Main would be an expansion of the topic of a section

(2) Further would be to expand on allied topics covered in a section

(3) See also would be any of those, in addition to tangentially related subjects

Atleast that is my understanding of the differences between them. 65.94.45.238 13:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.45.238 (talk)

That difference between (2) and (3) can exist, but it is small as neglectible in the encyclopedia, and is not enforced/maintained over template use. In all, these two are interchangeable without error of understanding. Simply: "See also ..." points to related, linked topics. And that's all we need. Maintaining that difference would be more artificial than illuminating. -DePiep 14:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That is to say: differences do exist, I agree. But IMO they are too small to maintain here as hatnotes. It requires a high level of editing to keep details right, and still then they don't add much. -DePiep (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

---

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) 23:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:In-universe/Star Trek

Template:In-universe/Star Trek (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose deletion: This is just an overly specific variation of {{In-universe}} and redundant to it, as it has "subject" parameter. I also nominate the following templates for the same reason: {{Top}} may refer to:

• {{Collapse top}}
• {{Archive top}}
• {{Hidden archive top}}
• {{Afd top}}
• {{Discussion top}}
• {{Tfd top}}
• {{Top icon}}
• {{Top text}}
• {{Cfd top}}
• {{Rfd top}}
• {{Skip to top}}

• {{In-universe/Generic}}
• {{In-universe/Anime and manga}}
• {{In-universe/Comics}}
• {{In-universe/Discworld}}
• {{In-universe/Dungeons & Dragons}}
• {{In-universe/Film}}
• {{In-universe/Literature}}

| class="col-break " |

• {{In-universe/Star Wars}}
• {{In-universe/Television}}
• {{In-universe/Three Kingdoms}}
• {{In-universe/Tolkien}}
• {{In-universe/Transformers}}
• {{In-universe/Video game}}
• {{In-universe/Warhammer 40,000}}

Template:Bottom Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 22:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete all after enabling subject-specific categorization in Template:In-universe and replacing all transclusions, e.g., {{In-universe/Star Trek}} → {{In-universe|subject=Star Trek|category=Star Trek}} {{In-universe|subject=Star Trek}}. The primary function of these templates appears to be to place articles into subject-specific categories, such as Category:Star Trek articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction. However, since {{In-universe}} already contains a "subject" parameter, it is better to continue to use that template after enabling subject-specific categorization. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • On closer examination, it appears that subject-specific categorization already is enabled in {{In-universe}} through the "category" parameter. So, adding {{In-universe|category=Star Trek}} to an article will place it in Category:Star Trek articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction. The "subject" parameter, which I mentioned above, merely identifies the subject in the message box and perhaps can be removed altogether. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Black Falcon's suggestion seems reasonable. BOZ (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• As the edit history says, I was modeling it after the Star Wars in-universe template (and, apparently, created the corresponding category). We have a newer, better solution now. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Go for it, but be sure to explain in that templates description that these parameters exist and can be used. No need to keep these templates if we have already have one that does the same thing, even if it needs more effort. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete all Why have this around when you can just do this: {{Inuniverse|anime and manga article}} and get the same result? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Neelix (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the suggestion to remove templates created ease of use - auto completing 3 of the 4 parameters in the parent template - and hope that later users will have a clue as to what to list for "subject", "described_object" and "category". That sounds a bit counterproductive. - J Greb (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The described_object and subject parameters are highly optional. The default for described_object is "a work or element of fiction", and the more specific text "an aspect of a {Foo}" is not a critical improvement. In a similar way, stating "This Star Trek-related article" is not a significant improvement over "This article".
    In my opinion, described_object and subject could be deprecated with little or no loss of information; of course, I am not advocating for that since their presence is not detrimental in any way. Fundamentally, the replacement that matters in the context of a maintenance template is of {{In-universe/Star Trek}} with {{In-universe|category=Star Trek}}. The documentation for {{In-universe}} was incomplete, however, but I have attempted to improve it by restoring usage instructions pertaining to the three optional parameters. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Fair point, and the wording on the base template example should be clear enough without hitting editors and/or readers over the head with the basic topic.
      I wonder if it may be worth converting the the "category" parameter to {{{1|}}} and a switch if the specialized versions are removed. It would simplify the 'bot run to replace them. - J Greb (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
      • That's an idea worth considering, though at the moment {{{1|}}} can be used to change the word "article" to something else, such as "list" or "section"—whether this is actually used in more than just a handful of articles is hard to say. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep for now. {{In-universe}} is not "idiot proof". In-universe's parameters are too complicated and confusing for editors to apply consistently and there is a huge risk that an article may not go into the correct or a non-existent cleanup category. An editor should only need to set one parameter to specify a subject area and ensure that the article is placed in the correct cleanup category. —Farix (t | c) 02:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Besides date, the template has only three other (optional) parameters. What aspect, in particular, do you find "complicated and confusing", which the documentation could address better? The "one parameter" to which you refer essentially is the category parameter, since the only function of the subject parameter is to specify the subject in the text of the message. It is possible to combine the subject and category parameters, but that would create the risk of an article being placed in a non-existent cleanup category. For instance, someone may want to specify "The Simpsons" for the subject and "Television" for the category. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete All Per nom. Just using the base template is more organized and allows for the same degree of versatility. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:WPGTMessage

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

Old, unused template. Purpose unclear. Near impossible to decipher this spaghetti code. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry :( I meant it to be a template for announcements on WikiProject pages. I haven't used it in forever, although there might be some other project that does, judging by the "what links here" ... if it gets deleted, I'm fine with that. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

As for it being hard to understand, I did include documentation: {{WPGTMessage|title|message|username}} —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Berrychart

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

Informative template, but unfortunately with an unclear scope. Where would it be placed? Also unsourced and unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:CEV Cup / Challenge Cup

Template:CEV Cup / Challenge Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A bit of redlink fever here. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Should be blue ones. And see Category:CEV navigational boxes. Template:CEV Cup is the same? That one could be a redirect. And that third one is different (only for men)? Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles are in Category:European volleyball club competitions, so there are: Women's CEV Cup 2007–08, Women's CEV Cup 2008–09, Women's CEV Cup 2009–10, Men's CEV Cup 2007–08, Men's CEV Cup 2008–09, Men's CEV Cup 2009–10. I think those need a navigational template. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Cfd nomination

Template:Cfd nomination (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used by the CfD process; see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#How to use Cfd. No longer needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• The template was created to replace {{Cfd2}}, {{Cfm2}}, {{Cfr2}} and {{Cfc2}}, but it has never been put into systematic use. There was some support for the idea when I proposed it in October 2010, following complaints about the complexity of the CfD nomination process, but discussion died down due to valid reservations (and some confusion) about naming. I posted a notice of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion to invite additional participation. If there is consensus to consolidate the level-2 nomination templates, then we can start working on the details; if there is not, then this template ought to be deleted if no one uses it. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Child taxa/Life

Template:Child taxa/Life (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is not the child taxa list of all life; this is the child taxa list for some kind of virus (??). Probably broken. Unused. No use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It is the child taxa list for all life. Less than half of those are virus taxa. It's not broken, as can be verified at Category:Immediate_children/Life. As for its use, I unfortunately can't answer that. Martin will know what it's used for and whether it's actually in use. I doubt he'd have a bot set up to update it if it weren't. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Civil Conflict

Template:Infobox Civil Conflict (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is an almost guaranteed violation of NPOV anywhere it's used. We don't need to refer to the budget debate in Wisconsin (or the internets drama around Scientology or a few dozen Israelis whining about gas prices) using the same approach as we do for the Battle of Stalingrad. That is an unnecessary injection of drama into otherwise quotidian events, and therefore not neutral coverage. Plus there's no such notion in social science as a "civil conflict." This template needs to be deleted. -- Y not? 01:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. The purpose of this template is not to show a civil conflict in the same light as Battle of Stalingrad; the purpose is to provide a less loaded alternative to Template:Infobox military conflict for non-military uses. Btw, user:Y, you're very biased or uninformed if you're saying the Wisconsin protests are merely a budget debate. Also, you believe these are a "quotidian" event? So you're trying to claim having 75-100k protesters is a normal day? If you need to claim that the mere use of the template is a "guaranteed violation of NPOV", then you need to say how. You seem to only link to articles when they are at their most biased and not what they evolved to be currently. I do agree that the template is a terrible fit for Scientology versus the Internet, as that's hardly a civil conflict. If you need a definition of a civil conflict, go look at one of the millions of google search results or one of the 20k scholarly articles on the subject. The purpose of the template is to show that civil conflicts, for instance the uprising in Bahrain, is not one sided. One of the optional features of the template, not that you have to use it, shows both sides of the conflict. In an upraising, this would be the rebellion and the government forces. The main purpose of an infobox is to provide the reader with a quick summary of the article. The existing Template:Infobox military conflict contains too many loaded terms and Template:Infobox uprising fails to provide enough fields to adequately provide a summary of the article for the reader. The purpose of this template is to span the area inclusively between protests to small armed rebellion and provide a useful template for the natural fluid progression that civil dispute takes between those stages. ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Example uses:

Saudi Arabian protests with vs. Saudi Arabian protests without

2011 Somalian protests, although I'm not sure of the notability of the article anyway. Perhaps more news will flow.

Wisconsin Protests with vs. Wisconsin protests without

Bahraini protests with vs. Bahraini protests without

The history of why it was needed is here: Talk:2011_Wisconsin_protests#Military_conflict_template. People thought Template:Infobox military conflict was a poor fit as the article is not about a war. People also objected to Template:Infobox uprising as it has connotations of an attempt to overthrow a government. There was an unanswered call for an infobox which would be suitable for low to mid civil conflicts, and hence I made one. I'm very open to help from anyone willing to make the template as suitable for that purpose as possible as none other seem to exist. ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Template has no definable limits and is an inevitable POV violation. Someone could put this one on Schneider v. New Jersey or the Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair or Snyder v. Phelps. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for commenting. While any infobox could likely be used for any page, if not poorly, these examples are much better served w/ their current infoboxes. I find no issue with an infobox being a versatile tool. Please explain why you think it's a POV issue. Do you equally want to delete Template:Infobox military conflict & Template:Infobox uprising because they could be a POV issue and used on other pages? See history listed above for why it was created. My original limits that I had in mind for the infobox is listed above: "The purpose of this template is to span the area inclusively between protests to small armed rebellion and provide a useful template for the natural fluid progression that civil dispute takes between those stages." ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
    • You are saying that by sticking that box into the Wisconsin article, we are in essence expressing an editorial opinion that their little labor spat is going to "fluid[ly] progress[]" to "small armed rebellion"? That is the very definition of a POV-introducing template. -- Y not? 05:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
      • user:Y: Quite the odd conclusion you come to by picking apart my words. Please look at the 2011 Wisconsin protests article and explain how you think the template means the people of Wisconsin are attempting to overthrow the government with a small armed rebellion. There's of course nothing inevitable that a protest will escalate or deescalate; what do you see in the template that implies this? Merely because an infobox can be used for a few situations, of course doesn't mean that that one of those situations will change into another.
        Hypothetically, let's assume someone makes an infobox very specifically only for a 'small protest' that couldn't be used for a 'large protest'. By your argument, wouldn't using that infobox on an article about a small protest create a POV that the topic of the article will never become a 'large protest'? This continuation of your argument seems to lead to a reductio ad absurdum specifically, that no infobox can be used for any current event that may change.
        On another note, do you think it's better to make a template that can only be used for extremely specific situations than one that works well for a few? How would you make an infobox differently to be used only for small protests? Sorry, this being a discussion and not a court of law, my language is imprecise; the 'fluidity' in my statement merely references that the definition has no clear, or hard division line between the low end and higher end of a civil conflict; the 'fluidity' isn't referencing that a conflict necessarily transitions easily; I should have worded that more clearly. ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)