< February 25 February 27 >

February 26

Template:WikiProject Kangleipak

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abortive attempt to create a WikiProject page in Template space. Unused, no useful history. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 22:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:ACArt

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. To answer the main question I have considered whether there is or is not a consensus that a template suppressing a selection of identifiers on artist biographies could be beneficial to our readers. !Votes from both sides not directly addressing this question or citing another editor who did have been given very little weight. I have also given less weight to !votes mainly raising implementation concerns such as which identifiers should be suppressed and which pages it should be applied to. This is because it has been long established procedure that Templates should not be nominated if the issue can be fixed by normal editing (WP:TFD#REASONS) and If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page (WP:ATD). This still leaves significant concerns about the template but there is in the end a consensus to keep the template.

I will also elaborate on the status of other issues raised in this discussion since this is by far the most comprehensive discussion on the template and it may assist in making future improvements as smooth as possible.

Recent and redundant fork of ((Authority control)), to which any missing art-related identifiers should be added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at ANI (link?) is irrelevant. ANI is not TfD, and deals with matters requiring administrator intervention (which template forks generally are not) only. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even more reason to delete it, then, since it seems this is just an attemt to run around your failed attempt to delete ((Authority control)). There is no need to hide identifiers; and those hidden by this template are not "less relevant" - or do we have no articles on, (for example) Spanish, Catalan, or Australian artists? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As others have already pointed out, this argument seems erroneous: The template is not a fork and clearly it is not "redundant" in that it presents different content to the reader, which seems to be the core point of contention. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tom.Reding: Woulld it be practical to add a parameter to Template:Authority control to handle this? There are way too many templates at Wikipedia as it is. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert.Allen: that depends on what you mean by practical. Can it be done? Yes. Should it be done? Probably not. It's better to build discrete systems on top of each other than to put them all together. See Template talk:Authority control#Template:ACArt name for some examples.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote from Keep -> Neutral and striking my last sentence, due to policing concerns. As pointed out by Aymatth2 below, well-intentioned editors may inappropriately place ((ACArt)) on art-straddling/art-adjacent subjects. There's currently no tracking mechanism in ((ACArt)) to find such cases. Hidden tracking cats should be placed when ((ACArt)) suppresses more than, say, 4 IDs, and broken down by # of suppressions (similar to the Category:AC with 25 elements series).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:ACArt break[edit]

It has been pointed out to me that this fork of ((Authority control)) is not only an attempt to circumvent the failed (as "speedy keep") attempt to delete the original, but it is also an underhand attempt to subvert the failed RfC which sought to remove the MusicBrainz ID from the original template; use of the new fork removes - without discussion - that identifier from biographies of artists who have designed, or whose work has been used as, album sleeves, of which the are thousands. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point: Stef Kamil Carlens, "a singer-songwriter, musician, composer, and record producer", where Fram has replaced ((Authority control)) with his forked template, removing the MusicBrainz ID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When someone makes a mistake in a few isolated instances, the right to do is correcting the mistake, and if necessary raise it at a talk page. Deletion of a template because it has been applied suboptimally here or there is not the right answer though. Carlens was a mistake, normally I skip musicians. Fram (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The 12,000 changes from ((Authority control)) to ((ACArt)) should be reverted
  2. Replacing ((Authority control)) with another template should only be done after consensus has been reached on the article talk page.
I would also be interested in views on the new templates ((ACArt+)) (same as ((ACArt)) but does not suppress any identifiers), ((ACArt-)) (does not show any identifiers) and ((ACNotArt)) (Only suppresses art-related identifies). Aymatth2 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Funny. Fram (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12K?!? It was only ~8K when I opened this TfD! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12,300. There are enough "Delete" votes above to show that ((ACArt)) should not be used to replace ((Authority control)) without discussion on the article's talk page, so the main contributors to the article can object if they want to. If this template is deleted, anyone who really wants to suppress the MusicBrainz link can always code:
((Authority control |MBA= ))
They should indicate why they are suppressing the link in the edit summary if not on the talk page.
I hope this template is not the first of a flood of link suppression templates, e.g. ((ACSoccer)) for soccer players, or ((ACFrance)) for French people, suppressing links to index entries for other aspects of their biography. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you may be aware, consensus is determined by strength of arguments rather than by counting numbers (and at a skim, even counting numbers the outcome doesn't appear to be as clear as you describe). A neutral, uninvolved closer will come along and determine what exactly the community sentiment on this template is. The closer may also note that the community has generally preferred the usage of templates to be tailored to being appropriate for a given article, and has codified this in PAGs (for example, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and WP:NAVBOX) or in TfD precedent and essays (such as WP:NENAN), and generally tends not to be in favour of templates that indiscriminately chuck everything at the reader without regard to relevance. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, the votes so far are:
The discussion started with a flurry of short "keeps" then progressed to more "deletes" and longer rationales, with some vote changes.
  • Arguments for ((ACArt)) include that it reduces unreadable clutter at the back of an article and avoids excessive external links per Wikipedia:External links.
  • Arguments against ((ACArt)) include that it is a redundant fork of ((authority control)); selection of relevant authority control links should be decided at Wikidata; the links are out of the way at the foot of the article; the complete set of links shows the influence of the artist and is extremely useful to workers in the cultural sector; and ((ACArt)) drops relevant links for people who are more than just artists.
This is another version of the minimalist / maximalist debate. Should we reduce Wikipedia to the essentials or include all available information? We are not going to reach consensus on that. If we decide to keep this template, conversion of articles from ((authority control)) to ((ACArt)) should be subject to agreement on the talk page of each article. A bulk conversion from ((authority control)) to ((ACArt)) has not been and will not be agreed, so Fram's 12,300 edits should be reverted. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia works by WP:BEBOLD. Requiring talk page consensus to change the template would be infeasible. In the same way, did 1.75 million transclusions of AC appear by consensus and talk page discussion, or by AWB spam? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I always include ((authority control)) in new articles and assume many other editors do the same, hence the many transclusions of ((authority control)). Assuming ((ACArt)) is kept, editors may start articles with ((ACArt)), and converting these to use ((authority control)) should also be subject to talk page consensus. Converting from one style to the other would be sensitive, like changing citation style, and should be agreed first as in WP:CITEVAR. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "redundant fork" argument is worthless, as it clearly produces a different result than the authority control template. The "selection should happen at Wikidata" is probable even worse: Wikidata has nothing to say about what we show or don't show in our articles (and vice versa; we have nothing to say about what Wikidata includes). "The links are out of the way at the foot of the article" is not an argument to decide for or against ACArt, all WP:EL are out of the way at the foot of the article, but not everything gets accepted or is allowed there. This leaves "the complete set of links shows the influence of the artist and is extremely useful to workers in the cultural sector": I very much doubt this though (both elements). The influence of the artist should be clear from the article, not from the number of hits they get in the authority control template (if this truly would be a good measure, one could add a "45 IDs available at Wikidata" instead of enumerating them all of course). And no one has explained how having e.g. the Swedish National Library link at Tintoretto[12] would be "extremely useful" for anyone in the cultural sector: it may be useful for a few software developers, but then they would be much smarter and working more efficient if they used Wikidata for these kind of (re)searches. Fram (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aymatth2 Uh, I'm not neutral, I voted to Delete Smirkybec (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Fixed it. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:1986 South American Team of the Year

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fails much of WP:NAVBOX, #4: There doesn't seem to be any content on this team of the year (ie this is completely unreferenced) . #2 the player articles generally don't mention that they were in this team of the year (except in this navbox) #3 they don't mention each other generally. In fact the template seems to be treated as some sort of award banner, which is not what navboxes are about. Content perhaps comes from http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/sam-toy.html or something similar. Nigej (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:44, 27 February 2021 (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).

Myanmar township templates

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of red links with no reasonable chance of ever becoming an article. Bot created. The Banner talk 11:22, 26 February 2021 (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).
More