Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 13



Template:Vidya Balan

 * 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 per nom Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Vidya Balan

Only three links, one of which is the topic article. Very little scope for expansion. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 14:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was asked to create the template during the featured topic nomination here. I think it's common to have a template link the articles in a featured topic. -- KRIMUK  90  ✉  14:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete despite FT nomination there really is no need for a template to link together just three articles that are sufficiently well-linked already, and there is no different standard for featured topics. The wording is "preferably using a template" so it is not (and cannot be) mandatory. Where there are rather more than 3 closely associated articles, there is sense in having a template to move between the articles, but not here. BencherliteTalk 14:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright. I wasn't aware of this. :) -- KRIMUK  90  ✉  14:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * delete, clutter per precedent. Frietjes (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, little scope and less requirement. Delibzr (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2015 (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:Interlanguage link

 * 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.

Withdrawn by nominator in order to re-list as a multi-template merge proposal [Participants here have been notified] Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Interlanguage link (9,387 transclusions
 * Red Wikidata link (28 transclusions)

Propose merging Template:Interlanguage link with Template:Red Wikidata link.

Interlanguage link, is entered as  and renders as:



Red Wikidata link is entered as  and renders as:



I propose replacing both of these with a combined template which renders as


 * Sigmund Jakobsen (no; Wikidata; Reasonator)

We would need to agree on parameter sequencing (or numbering) or naming; and whether the output should be fixed (my preference) or optional. It may be possible to allow the input to be in either of the current formats.

For editors who read only English, the Reasonator version of the above example is more easily understood than the Norwegian-language version. Note that some subjects may exist on Wikidata/Reasonator, but not in any Wikipedias.

Given the differing number of transclusions, it makes sense to make the changes to the Interlanguage template and replace instances of the Red Wikidata template. We may need a bot to do replacement, perhaps by Subst:. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Query - Is there a reason why you have not notified User:Magnus Manske, the creator of Template:Red Wikidata link, of this pending TfD merge proposal? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying the template creator, Andy . There is always the possibility that a template creator will offer insights that will support and/or refine your proposed merge.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

About Red Wikidata link, I didn't even know it existed. I think it's pretty cool, but two things. One is that compared to the two-letter language code it's obtrusive, especially for readers who basically aren't interested in other languages. Two is that readers want to read articles. We shouldn't be sending them to Wikidata. If they really want to see articles in other languages they can always click the illlanguage code to jump to a main article in another language and use the language bar in that article, which they already know how to do. Reasonator I thought was quite cool, but it's still Wikidata, not an article. Also it seems that it isn't finished. To test it I looked at What links here and tried (in French). This jumps to the Reasonator page, where if you look you can find the article link, but it's not easy to spot. I loved the maps, and the concept cloud would be cool if it displayed one, but it seems that it doesn't. So as of now, I'm against merging anything into ill. It would just make it more complicated by showing links that normally we shouldn't be showing to readers in the first place. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting proposal. I was unaware of the interlanguage link template, but I like it. I don't think we should merge these quite yet, though I follow your logic. Clearly from the numbers you have posted, unless they were added by a bot, the interlanguage link has won the "usability game" and is preferred by editors. Probably because the number of editors who understand what interlanguage links are and how to link them with prefixes is still much, much larger than the number of editors who know how to look up a Q number. By merging you will scare off all of those diligent interlanguage link users, and we definitely want them to keep on doing what they do. Jane (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The numbers are not an indicator of usability; because the Wikidata (2014) template is newer and less well-known than 'Ill.' (2006). It should be possible to generate the Wikidata output, even from Ill. template inputs, if an article exissts on another Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support only if the Wikidata and Reasonator links can be omitted after the merge to Interlanguage link because they are highly redundant with the current target. Aside: doesn't the Reasonator link contravene "no in-line external links"? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * +1 Support only if the Wikidata and Reasonator links can be omitted, as Michael Bednarek. --Atlasowa (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In what way are they "redundant to the current target"? How does this address the language issue I outlined in my proposal? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * They're redundant because, as Margin1522 has also found, the foreign-language Wikipedia articles already have a link to the Wikidata item. Your example of Reasonator doesn't show anything beyond the Norwegian article, and Margin1522's example is almost as unintelligible to the reader who doesn't know French (or has forgotten how to use Google Translate) as the French article; thankfully, it tells us that the museum is located on the 3rd planet of the solar system, which can be described as "redundant information". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I hardly think that a link being on another Wikipedia makes that link redundant on this one; the same could be said for many other links we show. The Reasonator page for Sigmund Jakobsen doesn't just show the article in the Norwegian language, it also tells us in English that the subject is a "Norwegian author born on August 7, 1944 in Karmøy". Its algorithm may show that the museum in question is on Earth (after all it is) but it also shows that it is in Quebec, Canada - information that is likely to be useful to our readers; and to anyone thinking of starting an article on it. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't support – The times when I use ill are normally times when an editor has linked in such a way that readers unexpectedly end up in a language that they can't read (in this case the 2-letter language code serves as a warning), or when they create a simple red link and an article exists in another language (in this case, readers who can read it may be interested). Normally I think we should assume that most readers can't read the other language and aren't interested, so the template should be as unobtrusive as possible. For those two things I'm pretty happy with ill just as it is.
 * The purpose of red links is to encourage readers to start a new article. A degree of "obtrusiveness" (read: "visibility") is therefore desirable. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't support as proposed I agree with those above who don't like the "Reasonator" link; it's definitely more obtrusive. Also ill is only one of a family of templates, and there would need to be consensus proposals for illm, ill2, ill-WD, etc. It seems to me that the direction of merge should be the reverse, namely Red Wikidata link should become part of the "ill" family of templates. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that ill-WD is closest to Red Wikidata link in function, but all of those templates should be merged. In particular, Interlanguage link is utterly redundant to illm (albeit the parameters are unhelpfully in a different order). If no-one objects, I suggest we speedily close this nomination, and I'll renominate them as a group. Meanwhile, I'll give those templates more meaningful names. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge both plus interlanguage link Wikidata with Interlanguage link multi Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use &#123;&#123;ping&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 13:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I'm not sure any template other that ill deals satisfactorily with the common situation where 3 parameters for article names are needed. I've stricken my earlier conditional "Support". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ≈  Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use &#123;&#123;ping&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 14:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I obviously didn't read the documentation for illm thoroughly enough. So your idea to merge into that template seems viable, although the technical details of how to recast existing use of ill and others into that template are above my pay grade. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Acme aircraft
Relisted at Template:Acme aircraft. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Miss Universe 2015 delegates
Relisted at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_21 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Largest towns of the Philippines

 * 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 as the unclear inclusion criteria and the lack of coherency between the subjects hinders this from being a usefual navigational aid Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Largest towns of the Philippines

Misleading as it states not the biggest towns of the Phillipines and confusing with Template:Largest cities of the Philippines The Banner talk 00:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Query - Is there some sort of official distinction between "cities" and "towns" in the Philippines? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not know that. Looks unlikely to me. The Banner talk 10:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant as there is already the largest cities and towns template for the Philippines. Cities and municipalities form the second-level admin unit in the Philippines and they only really differ in terms of political maturity and income which are vague.--RioHondo (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Might want to consider renaming the other one to avoid a "city/town" definition of another of these being created, but for now, let's just delete thisone.   Montanabw (talk)  21:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that Cities of the Philippines and Municipalities of the Philippines (aka towns) are different, the difference is that cities are richer and more populous. The cities navbox is exclusively for cities only while this one is for towns. – H T  D  20:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: Redundancy -- Largest cities of the Philippines is titled "Largest cities of the Philippines", but is displayed in as the badly-titled "Largest cities or towns of Philippines". So, does the navbox restrict it to just cities or include towns? Currently, the largest town is ranked 25th.
 * Re: Most populous -- When referring to "Largest cities" and "largest towns", it almost always refers to "most populous". There shouldn't be any confusion to this, as cities are known for having many people, not expansive open land. – H T  D  14:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment That "Largest cities and towns of the Philippines" template was actually based on the article List of Philippine cities and municipalities by population. So yes, there really is no point in separating the two. As second-level admin units, cities and municipalities do not differ significantly, so aside from the political and income consideration which more often than not have no scientific basis really, there really is not much difference. Cities aren't always more populated than municipalities. In Cavite province alone, four municipalities (Silang, General Trias, Tanza and General Mariano Alvarez) have bigger populations than Cavite City, Trece Martires and even Tagaytay. Rizal has only one city (Antipolo) but the whole province has a bigger population (and more income definitely) than Negros Occidental with 13 cities! So how was that possible? I don't believe the income data are accurate either. Just look at Mariveles vs Balanga and Daraga vs. Ligao. Or how impoverished Nueva Ecija could have 5 cities vs. neighbouring Pampanga which only have 3. And lets not even talk about Negros Oriental and its prairie cities. Tabuk? :)--RioHondo (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Back in the day, "standards" were even more arbitrary than it is today. That's why places such as Palayan became cities. Also, some towns refuse to become cities (the same could be said for the reverse) because of politics. The largest town won't "make it" to a top 20 ranking of cities and towns right now. Is that a good reason to have a separate navbox for towns? Re: Cavite -- there was a time that the largest towns like Bacoor would've "made it" to a top 20 of cities and towns, but they became cities already, so it's not quite rare. – H T  D  14:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not everything needs a navbox. And when it comes to the biggest incorporated places, of course they'd be mostly cities (and municipalities or towns that are cities). There's no point in having a list or template for the largest chapels, outside of the largest church buildings, which would mostly be of course your cathedrals or basilica buildings. :)--02:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the similarities between a navbox of "largest church buildings", which most probably doesn't exist(?) and little chapels aren't usually notable, and cities and towns that are automatically notable no matter how small, and there are always navboxes of such. – H T  D  15:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The template might be redundant, but it provides easier access to useful and interesting statistical information, especially since towns are almost always overshadowed by the richer and more populous cities. It might be better renaming this template to "Most populous" instead of largest, which might be confused as largest according to land area.Sanglahi86 (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the clarification. I changed the titles of both templates to distinguish them from one another. Sanglahi86 (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2015 (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.