Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 19



Template:Current time with daylight savings

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was move to userspace Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Current time with daylight savings
 * Is daylight savings on

The time template performs the same task but is easier to use and more prevalent.  iComputer  SaysNo 20:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me first give an overview of daylight savings time. It starts and ends on different days for many different countries, even when they're in the same timezone.  Many cities within a particular timezone in a country do not follow the same pattern as other cities in the same country and in the same timezone.  There are hundreds of exceptions.  Take a look at Daylight saving time by country and also note the 10 major Mexican cities which border the US and have so much US business that by an act of the Mexican Congress they follow the US rules instead of the rules that every other city in Mexico follow: here (noting that Mexico and US cities generally start daylight savings a few weeks apart from each other, primarily because Mexico is closer to the equator and thus daylight savings has less of an effect).  Places closer to the North/South poles get more of a benefit from daylight savings and some have experimented with more than an hour offset, although virtually every place that uses daylight savings now uses an hour offset.  Places closer to the equator get less of a benefit from daylight savings and most places near the equator don't bother with it at all.  So, with all that in mind, let's look at the Current time with daylight savings template and the time template.
 * Complexity: In aggregate, the templates are roughly the same in complexity, with Current time with daylight savings being more complex in aggregate, although it also has more functionality, and has documentation describing exactly how to add a new timezone/city/whatever. Current time with daylight savings,  a simple template, calls Is daylight savings on, a complex template.  time, a complex template, calls from a pool of 18 simple templates.  The extra functionality in Is daylight savings on is that it allows for daylight savings to start on different days in different countries -- when following the documentation a user may state that daylight savings starts or ends on whatever day is appropriate for a particular year (since places sometimes change how their daylight savings time correlates with other places).  time has a lot of safesubst which is unnecessary -- the template is reparsed on page load anyway.
 * Completeness: I think both are roughly as incomplete as each other, when compared to all the possible timezones and countries and exceptions that they could check. When I created the Is daylight savings on template I didn't want to put in every time zone in the world and all the different parts of the world that use different days that daylight savings starts and which may or may not be the same as in other time zones (last I checked there were literally hundreds of exceptions, again such as the 10 major Mexican cities which border the US), so I included instructions on how to do that for any particular timezone and any start/end time.  The time template also does not include that information and it expects users to figure out how to add it themselves.  Again, both templates have a drop in the bucket competed to all the possible timezones/countries/exceptions that they could contain.
 * Merge or Keep: I could see a merge happening, based on prevalence of use, for parameters to be added to time which allow for different start/end dates from what the server is using, if someone wanted to do that work, but I don't see the point in deletion. Banaticus (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What I understand from the above is that this is basically a complete reimplementation of a template to work around a bug in it regarding exceptions to normal region timezones. Is that right? Do we really need that? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I asked around on #wikipedia-en at webchat.freenode.net and looked at Category:Time, date and calendar templates but nobody knew about any time templates on IRC and after looking into numerous categories and quite a lot of templates, I gave up before I got down to the "t" section and just made my own template to do what I wanted done. So, no, it's not a reimplementation to work around a bug in it, that would be a waste of time.  It was a template which probably solved the same problem that the original was intended to solve, although with a great deal less work in my opinion, because #time isn't actually static so there's no need for all the safesubst or the page purge which is just a hideous drain on the servers, in my opinion.  If you don't want to see both templates existing, take the difference and merge it in. Banaticus (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This template isn't substantially used on enwiki and I don't see why it would be. Either merge to time if that is thought to improve that template, or else move to meta, which serves as a storage-place for clever, but currently unused, templates. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't see why it would be used substantially on this wiki? It's faster, causes less drain on the servers (no unnecessary page purge links or useless safesubst text, since #time won't cache in a template anyway), its documentation should mean that it's more easily editable by a novice at wiki template syntax, it doesn't prioritize by European latitudes but gives equal thrift to those countries that are more North or more South and consequently have more or less daylight savings time during the year, and its name is more suggestive of what it does.  What's not to like? Banaticus (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * delete or userfy, unused. Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2013 (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.

Template:Women's sports

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Women's sports

Previously deleted at Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 15, then apparently re-created without a consensus to do so ‎  p  b  p  19:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Not my favourite template but the template appears to be joining top level women's sport articles. The previous deletion appears to be based on the rationale that the template was not actually linking articles primarily about women's sport. Hence from reading the previous nomination, the deletion. --LauraHale (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Yeah I agree with LauraHale. Out of 24 sports listed, 17 have the word "Women" or "Ladies" in the title.  The 7 other linked articles mention somewhere in the opening blurb of the page that they are primarily played by women (usually in the first couple sentences, although Netball doesn't say that until the third paragraph). Banaticus (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2013 (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.

Country data templates for cities and counties in Maryland

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Country data Greenbelt, Maryland
 * Country data Gaithersburg
 * Country data Rockville, Maryland
 * Country data Montgomery County, Maryland
 * Country data Prince George's County
 * Country data Baltimore County

Additional templates added on 20 March per suggestion by Andrwsc:
 * Country data San Diego
 * Country data Baltimore
 * Country data Los Angeles County
 * Country data Detroit

In general, the "country data" templates are vehicles for packaging flag icons for use, as appropriate, in infoboxes, navboxes, tables, etc. These are newly created templates that mostly aren't in use now, and it is difficult to imagine any WP:Flags-compliant situation in which the flags of counties and modest-sized cities in the U.S. state of Maryland would be displayed in that fashion. Orlady (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Propose deleting the ones that are not used on any articles, and keeping the ones that are. So, delete "Greenbelt", and "Gaithersburg", but keep "Montgomery County", "Rockville, Maryland", "Prince George's County", and "Baltimore County". Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Aaaargh. The goggles, they do nothing, etc. The country data system is emphatically not supposed to be a flag delivery vehicle. That's what it's being used for in these cases. Thumperward (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, and please expand the nomination to include similarly-used country data templates for other cities and counties (e.g. Template:Country data Los Angeles County). In each case, the country data template was created to render flag icons for the County field in Infobox settlement instances to complement the existing icons for the country and state fields of the infobox.  Per WP:MOSFLAG, 22x20px icons for national flags have some utility, but less so for subnational (state) flag icons and very little utility for county flags.  At 22 pixels, they serve no informational purpose, and only appear to have been added for text alignment reasons.  In that case, I recommend using noflag for the county infobox field, as has been used for years in infoboxes such as the one in Gainesville, Florida.  Also, some of these county icon images are popping up on navbox headers (e.g. Template:Los Angeles County, California topics).  There has been substantial prior debate on the usefulness or not of flag icons in navbox headers; my opinion is that they are essentially useless for subnational flags. The flag image is much more effctive as a larger (e.g. 60px) image decoration inside the navbox (above, below, or instead of the map image, for example) instead of as a tiny icon on the header.  Therefore, the country data template set should not be expanded for that purpose either.   — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm adding some more templates per suggestion by Andrwsc. --Orlady (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Country data says "flag alias = Flag placeholder.svg" The Usage section says, "For further instructions, please see: WikiProject Flag Template."  It seems as though a Country data template is supposed to be a flag delivery vehicle, despite Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward)'s objection.    Looking for further information at the WikiProject Flag Template it says, "The first parameter is mandatory, and identifies the name of the country, region, city, etc."  Ok, so region and city flags are explicitly allowed according to the WikiProject Flag Template.  Counties (such as the Los Angles County flag template), while less important than a country, are more important than a city whose use is explicitly allowed -- cities generally have to follow the laws of the county that they're a part of.  I don't see anything prohibiting the use of these templates in this manner and it seems as though their use in this manner should be encouraged so as to follow already existing standard practices (such as city flags).  Sure, you're going to see them used on multiple city pages, but then you're going to see the state flags listed on multiple pages as well and counties, while subordinate to states, are superordinate to cities.
 * WP:MOSFLAG says, "Note: Terms such as "country" and "nation" as used below should be understood to also apply to other uses of flags, such as national subdivisions..." It then says, "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that [national subdivision] ". It also says that flag use in infoboxes should be discouraged as it gives a nation field undue prominence, however the articles where these templates are used already feature country, state, and sometimes city flags -- the articles are about those places.  I don't see anything wrong with the City of Los Angles page showing a US flag, a California flag, a Los Angeles County flag, and a Los Angeles City flag. Either the flags are relevant (including a County flag) or all flags of that type should be stricken from all infoboxes -- I think that the flags in these specific limited instances are relevant.Banaticus (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't that the page for Los Angeles shows those flags, the issue is whether they have any value when shown at icon-sized resolution. The Los Angeles infobox shows the city flag at 100px size, which is great.  But it shows the US, California, and LA county flags at 22px, which is heavily decimated and removes all detail.  The US flag is recognizable at icon size because it is widely known. The California flag less so.  But the county flag appears as a blue patch with some indistinguishable lighter-color circular center section, and perhaps some text underneath.  It's useless as an image at this resolution; the question is if it is useful as a navigational icon?  I say no.  If you want a decorative image in the article, make it big enough to be effective as an image.  But don't use the icon template system to display an image. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the same argument could be made for many country's flags at that resolution. Take a look at Template:Turkic-speaking_regions for several flags all at once at that resolution. There's something in the middle of Azerbaijan, for instance, but even when I put my eyes right up by the screen I can't make it out.  I think most of the flags at that resolution are only recognizable when we already know what the flag should look like and we look for something that looks vaguely like what we're expecting.  Sure, some flags are a heck of a lot more recognizable than others, like Template:Country data Abu Dhabi, but in general most flags really don't show up at that resolution very well.  It does give a sense of the flag, however, and I think the system is generally working well enough to leave those templates alone, even though some flags may be more difficult than others to make out at that resolution. Banaticus (talk) 06:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * National flags may get indistinct at such tiny sizes, but the proportion of our general readership likely to be able to pick out individual national flags is considerably higher than that able to pick out the different flags of counties in Maryland. A line has to be drawn somewhere. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Bingo. Many outside sources use flag icons for national flags, even for less well-known countries (e.g. http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtable/index.html?intcmp=fifacom_hp_module_ranking) but Wikipedia is the only website I've seen where the desire for flag icons gets expanded to include cities and counties.  Ridiculous. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Banaticus: I dispute your assertion that "the system is generally working well enough", which to me implies that you think flag icons for cities and counties are accepted practice. That's not true: the flag template system has been around for about 8 years, and there has been very little consensus in all that time for flag icon usage at that level.  See my comments above about the use of noflag for the infobox settlement "County" field, for example.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * All I did was to examine the source code, follow the links, and report what I saw written there, which was apparently what the people who created these template did (and I was not one of the creators). Don't be a deletionist. Go have this discussion at WikiProject Flags or somewhere similar, change what the templates say (and how they practically invite people to do just this). I say that the system is generally working well enough because people apparently did what the templates themselves suggested be done, and we want people to keep contributing, to continue editing well.04:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, per excellent reasons given by fellow Wikipedian, Banaticus. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per MOSFLAG, and comments above by Andrwsc. Mo ainm  ~Talk  20:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. If somebody wanted to show flags to readers in an encyclopædic fashion, in the body of an article and at a readable resolution, I'd be happy with that; but these templates do nothing of the sort. They're using flags as icons to represent areas, but the icons are unrecognisable to readers and they distract from the actual name of the area... and why is it in the infobox anyway? The templates are pretty hard to reconcile with WP:MOSFLAG. bobrayner (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge: Is it possible to merge some of these templates into existing ones? Such as, merging the Maryland county flags into the Maryland state template. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Makes no sense. You wouldn't want  to link to the article at Y instead.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's done with the USA flag template, for example links to the U.S. Army article. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Non sequitur. I'm talking about flagicon; you're talking about army. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad. Perhaps we could create a new template, altogether, for counties? Cheers! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Andrwsc Gnevin (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't understand any of these flag related arguments. These seem like reasonable navboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:04, 5 April 2013 (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.

Pop singers templates

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Animal (Kesha album) track listing
 * The Fame track listing
 * One of the Boys (Katy Perry album) track listing
 * Goodies track listing
 * Looking 4 Myself track listing
 * Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded tracks
 * MDNA (album) track listing
 * Goodbye Lullaby tracks
 * Let Go tracks
 * Under My Skin tracks
 * The Best Damn Thing tracks
 * Fallen tracks
 * Evanescence tracks
 * The Open Door tracks
 * Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album) track listing
 * Lotus (Christina Aguilera album) track listing
 * The Fame Monster track listing
 * Born This Way track listing

In a similar vein to the Sugababes, Rihanna and Britney Spears track list templates which have since been deleted, these are redundant because each artist already has their own songs template. This is only a sample and any more templates found like this should be similarly deleted. Till 02:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please link the track list template deletion discussions you speak of for relevance.  ~ [ Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  02:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sugababes, Rihanna, Britney. Till  03:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm going to go a head and vote Delete all as well.  I implemented this coding a year or so ago into just a few different articles to solve an editwar and used these examples from other articles "Well this is how they do it."  I've never truly believed in the random template name (it seems so disorganized!).  I think the "next song" and "previous song" navbox options are quite sufficient, and a full tracklist is not really necessary (that's what the album article is for).  ~ [  Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  22:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete all – Unnecesary clutters. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat ] 05:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete all, redundant. Cavarrone (talk) 06:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete all, I added the Teenage Dream template to the list. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Conditional delete: As long as each song links to the album, and the album displays the list of each song, that should be sufficient in my opinion. Banaticus (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * delete all Frietjes (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete', Also I think we should also include here (and delete) all the Lady Gaga album tracklist, templates.--LuxiromChick (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment, added Lotus, The Fame Monster, and Born This Way templates. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The Lady Gaga templates were added four days after the beginning of this TfD and the participation by a number of editors. The result may be the same, but a new TfD should be created for those templates so they get a full week of discussion. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * delete all, IMO these templates don't serve a purpose. Every article for a song has an artist template at the bottom that provides links to the singles and albums of that artist as well as the discography. Its effectively plenty of navigation. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  16:11, 6 April 2013 (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.