Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log

< June 9	June 11 >

1 June 10

[edit] June 10

[edit] Template:Siberian Europoids

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This template groups a number of Siberia prehistoric cultures under a rather aberrant and irrelevant term, I believed the term never really existed, it could be just racial-oriented. The template was created as an intent of targeting[1], which is an inappropriate dispute resolution for the user's distorted conduct. I believe the template name are inappropriated, since the user had been making several of his egregious and disruptive edits [2][3][4][5][6][7] and continued hostile towards me. I am calling for a deletion for this template as it contain uncertain racial and hypothetically theories on ethnicity identification, as well as violating the neutral point of view policy and exposure of a singular belief. The image of Tarim mummies over the template are enough to misguide others, since it does not particularly related to the subject itself. Eiorgiomugini 16:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I removed the image from the template. I don't know enough about this topic whether to decide one way or the other. Neutral. --myselfalso 00:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete Just seems unnecessary and quite unused to be kept around. Jmlk 1 7 07:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep~~Comment I have no expertise in this specific matter, but I trust the judgment of its author Ghirlandajo, who is one of the most prolific and experienced editors on the project. Your examples of "disruptive edits" are way off: all of those were perfectly legitimate requests for inline citations, which are always preferred. nadav (talk) 08:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how he was an experienced editor relevant to this. The main problem lies on the term, which is WP:OR. What I meant on his "disruptive edits" was his attitude, specifically his WP:Stalking on others, targeting and threat. And those were really disruptive and reprisal edits, you might wanna look over on the talk I had earlier with another admin[8] while asked for advise. Eiorgiomugini 19:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right: it's irrelevant. I changed my opinion to just a comment, as I am not qualified to judge whether it's OR or not. The behavioral issues are best handled in some other forum of course, not at XfD. Best, nadav (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Week keep. The template is not tagged for deletion, so I learnt about this discussion by accident. The five cultures succeeded each other during the period exceeding more than a millennium, so the pages about them should certainly be connected in some way. Whether the current template is the best way to link them to each other is open to discussion. Eiorgiomugini is in denial that there were ancient Caucasoid peoples in Siberia and China, despite numerous finds of mummies and human remains that testify to the contrary.[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. I fail to see what is meant by "uncertain racial and hypothetically theories". Every human remains are characterized by a certain racial type, like it or not; there is nothing uncertain or hypothetical about that. This is a typical Tashtyk face. Eiorgiomugini, is it really Mongoloid as you claim? --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I've now added the TfD tag. I suggest that this discussion be kept open longer that usual because the tag has been absent until now. nadav (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I see no point for this templates linking it to the tarim mummies, other than on theory said so and another said otherwise. The term is inappropriate, and even if the TfD tag had been absent until now it still doesn't changed the votes. The user had been offensive towards me on the edit summary while creating the template. And no I did not claimed those mask as whatever he said or in denial in what he claimed, if you are gonna believe his lies without any evidence, please go on. Eiorgiomugini 01:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle 03:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete I see no evidence that these cultures are related, except a passing reference to the controversial ethnologist Mariya Gimbutas. Better to write an article, which would lay out the sources, than a template. (And where does "Europoid" for "Caucasoid" come from? Some other title would be useful too.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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.

[edit] Template:Mutter

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This template is not needed and not necessary. The template is for a track listing to a CD. Even though all of the articles are linked in this template, the template does not follow proper formatting and it's not necessary since all of the links to an album can be provided on the album's article page and also on the extra track listing of an article of the song or single. — Douglasr007 01:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom--ROASTYTOAST 04:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums notified. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Delte using an analog example: there are no templates for every music album here on wikipedia --Andersmusician $ 03:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Use an infobox, not a purpose-built template. --Haemo 07:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete - appears to be redundant to {{Rammstein}}, which has a more standard navbox look. Gracenotes^T § 21:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete in agreement with the nominator. Acalamari 00:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete in favor of a ~~userbox~~. —OverMyHead 02:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Did I say "Userbox"? I meant "infobox." Duh. —Over My Head 17:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Subst and Delete. Not used on unique pages. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 19:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:SpoilerHidden and Template:Spoilerends

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The first, Template:SpoilerHidden, is an unused template that "hides" spoilers from the reader until the reader hovers their courser on the series of five dots. This is contrary to Wikipedia:Spoilers which states that spoilers should not be hidden.

The latter, Template:Spoilerends is a transclution of Template:Endspoiler and is only used once on a talk page. --Farix (Talk) 01:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete both per nom. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete both per nom, not needed. Yechiel Man 04:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete either unused, or violates guidelines. --Haemo 07:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete They're not needed. Acalamari 00:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete, surplus and damaging per guideline - David Gerard 13:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete another bunch of spoiler templates that we don't need. Evilclown93_(talk) 00:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Spoiler-season

The result of the debate was replaced with {{Spoiler}}, page to be left as redirect to {{Spoiler}}. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It is redundant to Template:Spoiler.. Evilclown93 00:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge merge the functionality of Template:Spoiler-season into Template:Spoiler. It is a delicate process and must be done carefully. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment I would hold off on deletion of these template until someone can evaluate its usage. In sure, is the usage redundant to the section headings? Can it be replaced by the more general {{spoiler}}? Does it actually precede any real spoilers or just general plot information? --Farix (Talk) 02:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete I looked through all of the cases where the template is used, which are all Stargate articles, and found that 95% of the time, it can be removed as redundant to the section's title. The remaining 5% can be replaced by {{spoiler}}. There is no need to merge functionality. --Farix (Talk) 01:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete, avoiding spoilers for later seasons of TV shows is a bad way of structuring articles. Kusma (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment With this tag, or a future merged tag, no content in an article is lost. It's just a tag. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Which is something not having this tag might encourage people to do. — The Storm Surfer 21:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Template:Spoiler. We do not need a spoiler for every topic, we only need one.--James, La gloria è a dio 20:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete and replace with {{spoiler}}. The "functionality" provided by this template is not necessary, and we can easily live without it. 81.104.175.145 00:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Redirect an spoiler that uses a tv series name as a variable? the series name is already on the article's tittle --Andersmusician $ 03:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Spoiler has a gazillion redirects and I personally like to streamline them by getting rid of those that are unused or little used. We don't need to make that problem worse. --Farix (Talk) 03:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete. I don't see any articles that needs to distinguish between multiple seasons, and this template just reiterates the season name in the spoiler-space (however, this was not the case in the last discussion, but some of those articles have since changed to remove this functionality; see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 4#Template:Spoiler-season).+mwtoews 19:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment/Process: Note that many of the articles which used this template have recently been changed to remove this tag. For example character articles like Jonas Quinn (used in the doc as an example) have had the template removed. Did this happen in a proper way? --129.241.214.170 01:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The proper process for editing an article is just that - editing the article. 81.104.175.145 17:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Spoiler-season proposals

The result of the debate was redundant. TfD closed above. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 05:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It is redundant to Template:Spoiler.. Evilclown93 00:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I'm merging these two nominations and adding in a similar proposal page Template:Spoiler-season/proposa2 as part of the nomination. I am unsure about deleting these proposals because these were working version of a new Template:Spoiler-season during its last TfD nomination. Perhaps a history merge of the design that was adopted into Template:Spoiler-season is in order while the other two are deleted. --Farix (Talk) 01:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete Per my comments above to delete the parent template Template:Spoiler-season. --Farix (Talk) 01:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Conditional delete History shows that these 3 subpages have been idle for 4 months. Unless someone can prove that they are actively being referenced as proposals, I vote for delete. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment proposal1 and proposal2 have /doc sub-subpages. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: My attempt for proposal2 was to minimize the parameters and presence for the spoiler template by removing the show name, since this is obvious to the readers of the article. I'm okay with their deletion (and for the parent template too :p ).+mwtoews 17:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You can place the {{db-author}} tag on the two proposals you made and get those out of the way, since you are the only editor who worked on those templates. That will leave us with the other proposal template. --Farix (Talk) 00:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. Thanks. +mwtoews 18:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete all as reduntant to spoiler tag. —Over My Head 02:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inline microformat templates

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 05:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

These are inline meta-templates that bring no content to articles, but only complicate the wikitext by bringing in special markup. They don't fit in any WP:TEMPLATE categories. Their intention is to structure some pieces of information in articles for easier machine readability through microformats, but the hCards they use are only one implementation of semantic web, and less powerful than RDF for example. Birth dates and geographical coordinates can be given perfectly fine without wrapping them inside special format templates. So far there are templates for only these few purposes, but people devoted to this output format are likely to start making similar templates for any imaginable data in Wikipedia articles. This is not the right way to make Wikipedia more accessible, and these templates should be deleted before any enthusiasts start spreading them wider.

There is a Wikimedia project on creating a semantic MediaWiki, which relies on annotating articles with easily understandable relations and attributes, without forcing the markup of any single semantic web format. That's what should be worked on, not ugly hacks like these templates.

See also recent WP:NOT discussion on microformats in Wikipedia generally. Note that these templates are a special case of that, as they are used inline in articles directly. Other implementations of microformats on Wikipedia hide the special markup inside template code, where most editors won't have to look at it. --Para 00:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep. There is no evidence of them causing any problems, and the "less powerful than RDF" allegation is both unsubstantiated and irrelevant. The "likely to start making similar templates for any imaginable data in Wikipedia articles" is a fallacious straw man (there are only microformats for a limited number of data types; and not all of them are suitable for this kind of inline template). Their use does not prevent the development of semantic MediaWiki; that's red herring. These templates meet a specific need which has been identified in numerous discussions, not least on my talk page. Andy Mabbett 06:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional output formats are something that should be implemented in software, not by ugly hacks in templates, especially if doing so hurts Wikipedia usability by adding markup to articles that doesn't seem to serve any purpose and that most people don't understand. RDF is a specification from the World Wide Web Consortium exactly for this kind of metadata, while these hCards are by a small group of enthusiasts who try to use features designed for electronic business cards for purposes for which they are inappropriate. This inadequacy may well limit the possible uses, but concerns of unsuitability have already been raised at this early stage. The "specific need" comes from microformat enthusiasts only, and while the addition of their favourite additional output format hidden away in template code might be acceptable, article space should not be polluted with their obscure markup. --Para 08:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I confirm that I (definitely not in the microformatist camp) have been asking AM to produce something like the last 2 templates (to be used on articles with no info box and no table of coordinates). An example of their use is on Sheffield Cathedral (version of June 9, in case it turns into a battle field). (The wikitext edit which is quite the most intrusive is the inline ref one which sends me to my optician after 5 or 10 minutes of inspection.) There is great opposition in some parts of wikipedia to any info boxes (eg in classical music and opera). (This is neither a keep nor a delete.) -- roundhouse 14:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Perhaps Para could restrict his comments to the facts, rather than vague accusations, unsubstantiated assertions, inventions, and unwarranted insinuations? For example, hCard was designed to be "for representing people, companies, organizations, and places", not merely for "electronic business cards". Perhaps his unwarranted actions are based on such misunderstandings; as was the supposed "concern of unsuitability" (N.B. singular "concern"), which is now resolved. Andy Mabbett 16:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Whichever the interpretation of any particular additional format, the fact remains that writing any of their markup directly in articles is the wrong way to implement them, and doing so obfuscates the wikitext unnecessarily for the benefit of only a very small group of people. What should be done when someone else wants their favourite meta format to be used in Wikipedia, should the microformat wrappers be wrapped with another template yet again, or the other way around? There is no end to that. By the way, if you feel I wasn't describing hCards properly, you may wish to fix the related Wikipedia articles saying "vCard is a file format standard for personal data interchange, specifically electronic business cards" and "hCard is a 1:1 representation of the vCard standard". --Para 17:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment We're adding hCard microformats, not vCards. Your arguments are just hypothetical, slippery slope scaremongering. Please provide evidence that only a "a very small group of people" will benefit from the availability of microformats. Andy Mabbett 17:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not :-( Andy Mabbett 17:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep until Semantic Mediawiki can be implemented (hopefully it will be in en Wikipedia). Then, the template could be changed to reflect the extension, and then mass-substituted. Gracenotes^T § 18:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What will be done when someone else repeats this WP:OWN campaign and wants to see their favourite output format on Wikipedia? Will everyone be ok to look at things like {{semanticformat|type=event|target=person|format=parse|content={{hcard-bday|fn=Firstname Lastname|bday={{birth date and age|1955|06|08}}}}|eventtype=dob|wrapper=hCard}} in articles that mention someone's birth date? The nominated inline templates are on Wikipedia only because the creator feels they're necessary. Everyone else probably understands that adding their own format on Wikipedia won't be done by ignoring all opposition. If there's someone who doesn't get that, we should not let it pass just because communication with them is impossible. --Para 18:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point. So, why not include all reasonably used output formats on Wikipedia in several templates, each of which has one format after another? If so, these templates nominated for deletion could be merged into those ones. Microformat templates that are not used by anyone other than us should be discouraged in most circumstances, of course. Gracenotes^T § 19:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be ok if the template used in the article is the kind that annotates content and has nothing specific for any single output format in the template call itself. All additional formats could then be implemented hidden away inside the template code, generally edited by far fewer people than articles are. That's how some of the other non-inline microformats are currently done, transparently without a trace of them in the article wikitext. Unfortunately in this case the additional format needs information that isn't provided in the template call, hence the obscure wrapper template hack. --Para 23:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Your accusation of WP:OWN is wholly unacceptable. Please familiarise yourself with that policy, and retract the slur. Your hypothetical example is a red herring. Andy Mabbett 20:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Andy: in my experience, calling arguments "red herrings" and "strawmen" is counter-productive; they do have specific meanings, but sadly, they've become buzzwords for "ignore this argument". Gracenotes^T § 23:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Thank you, but I was indeed using them in the sense of their specific meanings. Andy Mabbett 07:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I certainly assumed that you were using them in their specific meanings, but only noted the unfortunate mud-sling-esque connotations. Gracenotes^T § 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to assure you that any such connotations were entirely in your interpretation. Andy Mabbett 21:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to the connotation attached to the word in general, not your diction in that specific case. But... not worth arguing about this ;) Gracenotes^T § 23:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Microformats (if accepted widely on the web as is the same with RDF) should be implemented in the WikiMedia software. Inline templates make it more difficult for the inexeprienced and casual editor to edit an article whilst adding little of vital importance. Regan123 22:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Can WikiMedia software emit microformats now? No. Can these tempaltes emit microformats now? Yes. Also, how do you expect WikiMedia software to know whether or not to emit a microformat, and waht to put in it if it does, without a template ? Andy Mabbett 22:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Should something potentially useful be done badly with the expense of usability elsewhere, if no better solution is available? No. The obscure markup used might change Wikipedia from an encyclopedia that anyone can edit into a site to demonstrate technical innovations only precious few understand to edit. People should really not be forced to look at things like "hcard-bday fn" when they just want to write someone's birth date. --Para 23:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

To answer your rhetorical question, No, something useful should not be done badly. This template does not do such things badly. Nobody will be "forced" to enter birth dates (or anything else) suing these templates; editors will remain at liberty to use raw text or {{birth date}} templates, as at present. These templates imply offer additional functionality, for those editors who do wish to add them. Once added, it is clear to any editor which components are the name birth date or whatever, should they wish to edit them. If you are not happy about the names of the templates, or their properties, I'm sure everyone will be as interested as I would be, to hear your positive suggestions for better names, rather than negative hypotheticals. Andy Mabbett 07:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

By saying it's en editor choice, do you plan on starting to replace all birth dates and other microformat suitable items on Wikipedia with your preferred meta templates? The whole idea behind these templates is based on a faulty scheme of things; editors are not supposed to choose which output formats Wikipedia uses, since that job is for the developers. There is no way to rename or fix these templates or any other meta templates that exist only to generate something hidden. Output format markup must not be mixed with article wikitext. The only way to make the problem go away is to delete them. --Para 08:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

To answer your first question: No; you are still resorting to "straw man" and "slippery slope" methods of argument, based on some imagined future problem. Editors already choose output formats in a number of other ways. You have yyet to offer any evidence that there is a problem to "go away". I note that you still have nothing positive to offer. Andy Mabbett 09:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep until MediaWiki fixes all this pda stuff--Andersmusician $ 03:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It has already been done. See http://ontoworld.org/wiki/Semantic_MediaWiki for example for a working wiki with the semantic features enabled. There's no point in trying to invent an inferior version through templates. --Para 08:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC) I didn't realise until now that the keep vote above is somewhat misguided: inline microformats don't have anything to do with PDAs per se, despite the word "micro". While microformats in general may or may not be useful for PDAs, that's not what this nomination is about. --Para 10:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not an "inferior" version; it is an entirely different method, with a different purpose. Semantic MediaWiki does not offer the user-friendly features of microformats. The example you cite does not apply, today, to articles on this wiki. Andy Mabbett 09:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki is server side. You are probably after client side tools. --Para 09:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

None of which offer the user-friendly features of microformats. Andy Mabbett 11:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Which are? You are effectively making WP:ILIKEIT your point, while ignoring the correct solution for semantic markup inclusion, because it's not supported by your favourite browser extension. Such markup has to be done by annotating the content with general human readable tags, not by assigning values to properties of one specific format. RDF is not an entirely different method, it's just more versatile than formats 1:1 with an electronic business card format. --Para 12:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not using "ILIKEIT"; though once again you are making unfounded accusations, and apparently seeking to make ad hominem attacks rather then address the real, concrete issues such as the benefits for our users to which I refer. Please show me which of the tools you cited allows a user to visit, say the Wikipedia article about, say, an organisation, and to add that organisation, directly, to their address book today. Please show me which of the tools allows a user to add a collection of points, such as all the volcanoes in Argentina, and export whole lot into a KML file (or into their GPS device, as a user will be able to do with Geo in a couple of weeks or so). Please show me how an editor can add RDF to a Wikipedia article today. RDF is an entirely different method. I have no idea what you mean by "human-readable tags", but microformats are specifically designed to apply to human-readable data, rather than hidden metadata like RDF. Andy Mabbett 14:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This deletion nomination is about hCard markup being in the wrong place in article wikitext. Writing any other output format markup in articles would be just as inappropriate. None of your use cases need inline microformats, the hCard markup seems to work fine hidden away in templates. With human readable tags I mean that the tags in wikitext should be readable for all editors, without having to know what "hcard-bday fn" or other output format specific markup tags mean.

If you want to be hasty as usual, and have things implemented today without trying to do it properly, the same template scheme could be implemented with RDFa following W3C geo vocabulary [16] and XHTML recommendations [17], but doing so with templates wouldn't be much better than with hCards. I don't use any of these formats myself so I can't really help there, but I'll try to favour you anyway: Piggy Bank from the previous link is exactly for using RDF data from web pages, and Operator also claims RDF support. But again, this deletion nomination is not about converting all your hard worked microformats to RDF or any other format, but to stop you from obfuscating article wikitext with inline microformat markup. --Para 17:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You're back to hypothetical ad hominem. It's clearly not possible to do the things I described, which can already be done with microformats, in the is wiki, with RDF, as it stands, now. In that respect (which is what counts, to our users) microformats are not an "inferior" version of RDF, but are therefore superior to it. These are templates, not inline microformats. I have already invited you to suggest better parameter names; you declined to do so. There is no obfuscation of article wikitext. Andy Mabbett 18:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

RDF could be implemented today in the same sloppy way microformats are, by sticking the markup in templates as I described above. The correct way would be to use semantic wikimarkup the way Semantic MediaWiki uses, and that's what'd take a longer time to implement since it's not enabled here and probably not ready for the English Wikipedia anyway. Your inline microformat names and properties cannot be renamed, as they are just that, specific markup format properties that have no place in articles. As I have said above, the only way to stop them for obfuscating article wikitext is to take them out. --Para 18:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"could be" != "is". If, as you admit, the system is "not implemented here" (unlike microformats) and "not ready anyway" (unlike microformats), then raising it here appears to be a pointless distraction. It's clearly not possible to do the things I described, now. The implementation of microformats in Wikipedia is not "sloppy". The property names used in the templates under discussion can be anything we choose; once again, you're making false statements, and displaying an ignorance of the subject at hand. There is still no obfuscation of article wikitext. Andy Mabbett 18:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the W3C links above about embedding RDF in HTML before insisting it's not possible, now. Also try not to claim people's opinions as false, as it really is my opinion that markup for additional output formats in article wikitext does indeed make them harder to edit. If the content annotation is done correctly, there is no need for any such format or property names in articles. --Para 18:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't theoretically, possible, you said it is not available here. I have disproved your false claim (it was a statement, not an opinion) about parameter naming in {{Hcard-geo-title}} used on Sheffield Cathedral). You cannot automate the microformtatting of content without the use of templates (or raw mark-up, which I assume you would like even less); if you think you can, prove it. Andy Mabbett 18:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read the posts more carefully before answering. Semantic MediaWiki is not only RDF, and RDF is not only about Semantic MediaWiki. Semantic MediaWiki is currently not available here, but you are just as free to stick RDF markup in template code as you have done with microformats. I am not against including useless cruft in templates, but only against including some of that cruft in article wikitext. If microformats can't be used for some purpose without polluting article space, they shouldn't be used for that at all. --Para 19:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Microformat outdent 1

You (Para) worngly accsued me, earlier, of breaching WP:ILIKEIT; it would appear to be you who is in breach of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, not least with your "cruft" comment. These templates are no more "polluting" the article space than any other number of equally acceptable templates. Andy Mabbett 19:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment for markup fix solution: These three templates wrap other templates inside them, adding only the name of the article to be included in the microformat. Wouldn't it be possible to extend the original templates being wrapped not to take an additional name parameter as I suggested somewhere earlier, but to use the {{PAGENAME}} variable? It expands to the name of the calling article, so the microformat could then be implemented entirely in template space, we could continue using the usual content annotation templates in articles without looking at special format markup, and these three templates could then be deleted as redundant. Yea? --Para 01:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No; they are not intended solely for use where the subject of the microformat is the subject of the article. See, for instance, Engine Arm and the potential use for coordinates on Ridge Route. The microformat in these templates is already implemented entirely in template space; no "special format markup" is required. Andy Mabbett 09:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, back to my previous proposition then: why would it not be acceptable to add an optional name parameter to the existing content annotation templates and create the additional format there? The microformat in these wrapper templates is mostly in template space, but remnants are required to be put in article space in the form of "hcard-bday fn" or "hcard-bday name", plus all the curlies and separators. --Para 12:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What "content annotation templates"?

"remnants are required to be put in article space in the form of "hcard-bday fn" or "hcard-bday name", plus all the curlies and separators. " - Please stop making factually inaccurate statements such as that.

Andy Mabbett 13:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

{{birth date and age}} is a content annotation template; it tells that the included content is a birth date. Its markup in articles doesn't say anything about the output format, as it shouldn't. This is exactly how Semantic MediaWiki allows making structure to content in a wiki, with markup to tell what the data is, but not how it should be handled further. Output formats and their specific markup is outside the scope of article space. With these inline microformat templates however, users are required to look and edit things like "{{hcard-bday|name=Firstname Lastname|bday={{birth date and age|1955|06|08}}}}", where the parts in red don't belong in article space, but editors would be forced to look at them anyway if these templates aren't deleted. It could be argued that the name parameter is strongly linked to the birth date and age of a person, so it could be included in the content annotation template. The same applies for coordinate templates, where the name of the location could be important. --Para 13:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean in the format {{birth date and age|1955|06|08|Fred Smith}}, and emitting an hCard if the name is present? I'd be content with that; but there's no need to delete the templates under discussion in the meantime. Andy Mabbett 14:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Could you then change your vote to "delete" or "delete after orphaning"? --Para 14:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Please change your vote, to keep these templates. I'll be the first to re-nominate them for deletion, if and when acceptable alternatives, as discussed, are available. Andy Mabbett 15:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The nominator doesn't have a vote, it's implicit. Nothing has changed since the nomination, these templates are still just as out of place as ever. Having the same discussion again some other time wouldn't make sense when the situation with these templates is the same. We can choose to delete them already without actually deleting them right away. --Para 11:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This sounds fine with me, and reflects the portability I explained above would be a good idea. I could rewrite the code of {{birth date and age}}, if need be. Gracenotes^T § 14:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you do so in a sandbox, please? Andy Mabbett 15:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Could we have {{coord|53.3830|N|1.4694|W|scale:1000|region:GB|display=title|name=Sheffield Cathedral}} (or similar)?
At present we have
{{hcard-geo-title|name=Sheffield Cathedral|coordinates={{coord|53.3830|N|1.4694|W|scale:1000|region:GB|display=title}}}}
(which doesn't seem too bad to me, as it just appears once in the footer, or header, and isn't inline). -- roundhouse0 14:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but {{coord}} is already very complex, not least in its optional display properties. Andy Mabbett 15:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep: They increase the usefulness of information. They might be more complex than "20 miles west of Chicago" but they're simpler than crafting the code manually. Maybe better technology will gobble them up, but please do make eggs while waiting for the chicken to appear. (SEWilco 01:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

That's not what this deletion nomination is about. "20 miles west of Chicago" can already be written with coord using coordinates 20 miles west of those of Chicago. These templates exist solely as wrappers for that data, and as proposed above, the alleged usefulness can easily be implemented in the normal content annotation templates without article editors having to craft anything at all. Let's try to avoid the bad eggs. --Para 15:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You appear to unaware of what it is that these templates do. They do not "merely" warp the text, they emit hCard microformats, which are parsable my machines, and allow suers to easily download the formatted data into other applications, devices or websites. In the case of coordinates, they apply a label so that parsers present the coordinates as, say, "Chicago", rather than just a pair of comma-separated strings of digits. Let you try to avoid making any more misleading statements. Andy Mabbett 15:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

From content point of view, they only add a name to the data being wrapped, describing it as an hcard instead of what it is. A name is still well within the scope of coordinate and birthday templates, and could be added there if necessary, thus making these templates redundant. --Para 21:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

An hCard is what it is. Please stop spreading FUD. We have already discussed the possible future expansion of other coordinates. Until it happens, these templates are not redundant. Andy Mabbett 21:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment to give a name to what is being done wrong: The model-view-controller pattern separates data (article wikitext) from the user interface (html in MediaWiki and templates). These templates are mixing the two by leaking view into model. The pattern is otherwise followed in Wikipedia by using wiki syntax in articles instead of direct html markup, thus making the model independent. Some html unfortunately remains, but when possible, all output format related markup should be put in templates. In this case it is possible. --Para 10:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

These templates use Wiki-syntax; as do a number of other inline templates already widely in use on Wikipedia. They do not requier the editor to use any HTML. I note that you have ignored my post, time-stamped 15:19, 12 June 2007. Andy Mabbett 10:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

hCards are even more specific than HTML and can't be used anywhere else but for the output format purpose only. The other inline templates in Wikipedia annotate content without bringing elements of their own to article wikitext, as described above. The red text above is part wiki syntax part hcard output format, and totally unacceptable in the data separation sense. Please try to understand the difference between model and view, or content and output. --Para 11:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid making personal attacks in your edit summaries. Your earlier descriptions have already been shown to be false. There is no hCard markup (nor "hcard output format", whatever that is) in the template code as entered by editors. Andy Mabbett 11:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] June 10

[edit] Template:Siberian Europoids

[edit] Template:Mutter

[edit] Template:SpoilerHidden and Template:Spoilerends

[edit] Template:Spoiler-season

[edit] Template:Spoiler-season proposals

[edit] Inline microformat templates

[edit] Microformat outdent 1

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search