Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 5



Windows-related article content moved to template

 * 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. The outcome is technically subst and delete, but there are no transclusions left to substitute. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Windows Phone 8.1
 * Windows Phone 7
 * Windows Phone 7.5
 * Windows Phone 7.8
 * Windows Phone 8
 * Windows 10 for phones and small tablets
 * Windows 10

Hochachtungsvoll, --Namlong618 (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Hochachtungsvoll, --Namlong618 (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Hochachtungsvoll, --Namlong618 (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Subst and delete - article content moved to template namespace. GermanJoe (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All of the templates have now been merged into their parent articles and can be deleted. NeoGeneric (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Summary notification left at User talk:NeoGeneric as template creator. GermanJoe (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Against WP:template namespace, those templates effectively are article subpages on their own. Another notable aspect are the recurring edit wars over Windows release history in some of the affected articles. Moving content away does not solve that problem, but transfers it to the less visible (and less trafficked) template namespace - where edit wars are even more disruptive. GermanJoe (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, prior to the edit war(s) these templates have provided quite some useful information, and I question the fact that prior versions of Windows Phone (which have not been taken into question) are also nominated for deletion, also the informative Windows Phone version history page would be deleted if these templates are lost, further though I'm on the party that states Windows 10 <8" is not an iteration of Windows Phone we do not oppose the existence of these templates (even in respect to prior templates regarding Windows Phone as Windows Phone 7 is also treated as a successor of Windows Phone 6.5 in another article), if you'll nominate these templates for deletion don't delete anything prior to Windows 10, these "edit wars" don't regard Windows Phone-branded articles, and it's a discussion of branding and to which product family the latest operating systems belong, not to the factual accuracy of the prior versions of Windows Phone. If these templates should be removed from the Windows Phone version history page I'd suggest that they'll be implemented and moved to their respective versions/operating systems, not removed.
 * maybe my initial request was a bit unclear (sorry). The current templates' content would be moved back directly into their parent articles (where they are currently included), before the templates are deleted per WP:Template namespace, first bullet point. It's more of a move (or merge) than a full delete - editors of those articles would not loose any of the contributed content. GermanJoe (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I'm confused as to why the Windows 10 template is included, the Windows 10 ≥8" template is included in no other article but that of Windows 10 ≥8", only the Windows 10 <8" is included in the Windows Phone version history page, as for that page ¿will the W.P.V.H. page be deleted when these templates are "deleted"? My beef is not with the templates as if they would be included normally I'd support it, but the Windows 10 <8" template should not be in the Windows Phone Version History page, which is what the edit war has been about (1 user Vs. 3 users, the 1 user only has 2 sources, and we have 6 reliable 3rd party sources that agree with our view-point regarding branding (as it's not a vote) but this is not what this deletion is about), ¿how will it look? ¿Similar to the Xbox One system software page? because if that's the case then I'll have to stand for Subst and delete as long as the Windows Phone version history page gets preserved (as Android also has a version history page of its own, and the notability of both is equal) because despite the edit war the page has remained virtually untouched, I suggest making the page more like Android version history rather than deleting it as Windows Phone (as a brand) has officially been abolished no future updates will added to the page anyhow, and I don't see why Windows Phone can't have a version history page that would be easier to navigate for someone interested in the subject as opposed to visiting each individual version page that doesn't even include complete information as some smaller features are less notable.
 * Also before you quote that Wikipedia is not a changelog I'd be willing to nominate the respective iO.S. and Google Android version history pages for deletion as they all fill the same function, and Windows Phone iteration pages don't have separate articles for each update either.
 * I'll answer on your talkpage in more detail about the articles, if you don't mind - that is a bit off-topic for this template-related discussion. GermanJoe (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Subst and delete hiding article content in a template that is low or single use. Inappropriate usage of Tempaltespace for non-template material. Tables are not templates, tables should not be templates just because they are tabular. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Subst and delete Agreed with above. The templates should be merged with their respective parent pages, and inevitably the deletion of the Windows Phone version history page. The tables for Windows Phone 7.5 and 7.8 may need to be merged with 7.0 since they have no parent articles. Is this also applicable to the IOS 8 change log template? Because this is where I sourced the template usage. Cheers. NeoGeneric. (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If yes, it would probably affect the whole "IOS n"-line of templates (4-8). But let's see, what other editors think of the Windows templates first (although it is a relatively clear case imo). GermanJoe (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Windows Phone 7 has separate sections for each version in the development history of the Windows Phone 7 page itself, each present template can be placed bellow the section rather than be merged into 1 large table.
 * Hochachtungsvoll, --Namlong618 (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Subst and delete the two Windows 10 ones. My !vote for the others would depend on whether an article is deleted, which is outside of this venue. I suppose merging as described above would be ok, though. —PC-XT+ 08:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Against any form of removal of the Windows Phone version history page since there is Android version history and iOS version history If WP version history is removed then Android and iOS version history must absolutely also be deleted otherwise this would be some kind of directed assault against information regarding Windows PhoneUser:User931 13:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Android looks ok, but iOS will probably receive a similar outcome as what is decided here for the usage of templates. In regards to the deletion of the WP version history page, the version templates would be moved into their respective parent articles as tables. I would suggest this because Windows Phone (now just "Windows") lacks the continuity of branding that iOS and Android have experienced, so a dedicated version history page is less useful. Please note that I'm a bit of a WP fan - it's not an attack :) NeoGeneric (talk) 14:30, 6 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:Res ipsa loquitur vs prima facie

 * 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 prose article content is undesirable use of templates Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Res ipsa loquitur vs prima facie

This template contains a block of substantive text replicated in two articles. I don't believe that we use templates in this way. bd2412 T 05:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How would you propose that we handle the situation? The block of text is fundamentally the same, but has been minorly tweaked for grammar, and the changes didn't replicate to the other article.
 * The difference between the two is that prima facie is a term meaning there is enough evidence for there to be a case to answer. Res ipsa loquitur means that because the facts are so obvious, a party need explain no more. For example: "There is a prima facie case that the defendant is liable. They controlled the pump. The pump was left on and flooded the plaintiff's house. The plaintiff was away and had left the house in the control of the defendant. Res ipsa loquitur."
 * compare to:
 * The difference between the two is that prima facie  is a term meaning there is enough evidence for there to be a case to  answer. Res  ipsa loquitur means that because the facts are so obvious, a party  need not explain any more. For example:


 * "There is a prima facie case that the defendant is liable. They controlled the pump. The pump  was left on and flooded the plaintiff's house. The plaintiff was away  and had left the house in the control of the defendant. Res ipsa loquitur."
 * Clearly, tweaked for grammar and style, but in two different ways.
 * If you don't like my boldly implemented solution, what's your better solution? Jsharpminor (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it looks like this one is going to be snowed closed. But could I please get a more cogent answer than "we don't usually do that"? If it works and works well, and doesn't break anything, why not let it be? It might solve some existing problems, and may be copied and become something that we do on the rare occasion (such as this one) when it's actually appropriate to have the same text transcluded on more than one article. "It's not generally done" only prevents anything new from happening. If there's a good reason not to do it, please let me know what that is. In the meantime, I'll copy the text to the articles in preparation for the inevitable deletion. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the effort, and the boldness, but it's just not something we do. Is a source going to be added to the template? Outside the template in each article? How will a newbie react if they try to edit this text in the article and can't find it there? bd2412  T 15:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - We do not create a template for the simple function of repeating the same passage in the main body text of two different articles. Template text should be copied and pasted into the main body text of both articles where it is presently transcluded, and the template deleted.  First time I've seen this.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, just so you know where I got the notion from, see the 2014–15 NFL playoffs article. It has more transcluded templates than I've ever seen. See especially the bracket. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2014–15 NFL playoffs, like dozens of other articles in the series, has templates with many blank parameters that can be filled in, including templates that transclude into other templates. This is done so that sets of dozens of articles or more can have consistent styling even though they present different information. It is not done so that two articles can present the same block of text. bd2412  T 01:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the reply. I suppose I understand about why the NFL bracket would have that, although I don't quite understand why it's appropriate for a bracket that is only linked on two articles, yet is inappropriate for text blocks. I also feel like there may be a fundamental flaw with this question, so please pardon in advance if that is true. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase the question. Is there a way to handle this without just copy/pasting text to two articles? That could lead to the text creeping slowly apart, still continuing to say fundamentally the same thing, while only half the editors see each version. How is this handled in other cases where this is a problem? Surely this isn't the only one? Jsharpminor (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a countless articles with some degree of overlap in content. We maintain textual consistency manually. Editors who are aware of specific instances of overlap can watch both articles to keep them as consistent as they need to be to accurately reflect the world. bd2412  T 04:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Subst and delete just because it is harder for many to edit this way. (If everyone knew how to edit templates, I may actually think this was a great idea.) —PC-XT+ 08:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. We don't template article prose. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we SNOW this one already? Jsharpminor (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Would it be improper for me to blank the template and CSD it under G7? Jsharpminor (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really, but why bother? Subst it in the articles, unwatch it, and let it be. bd2412  T 03:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please define subst. I have copy/pasted the text to the relevant articles; upon closure of this discussion the template can be deleted without further action. Is that what is meant by subst? Jsharpminor (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have a template   and you write it out as   , saving the edit replaces the template with the text contained in it. Certain templates are always supposed to be subst'ed, such as    templates for new users. If the text has already been copy/pasted to the articles, this is not needed. Cheers!  bd2412  T 04:40, 8 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:Infobox mountain range

 * 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 merge. There are some objections and reservations about the prepared combined template from Hike395 mentioned in the discussion. There is consensus to merge, but this discussion doesn't show consensus to use the proposed merged infobox as is. A consensus on how the merge should take place exactly can be established on the templates talk pages Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox mountain range
 * Infobox mountain

Propose merging Template:Infobox mountain range with Template:Infobox mountain.

Volcano Guy had a good suggestion: many mountains are really massifs, so they are more like ranges, and would benefit from the entries in the mountain range infobox. He suggested merging Infobox mountain and Infobox mountain range.

As an experiment, I built a merged infobox, which takes the formatting (mostly) from Infobox mountain, the section headers from Infobox mountain range, and accepts the union of the parameters from both. I was pleased to see that there was large amounts of overlap in the code between the two infoboxes: each is individually about 15K of code, while the combination is only 19K.

I used the new merged infobox in the test cases for both kinds of infobox. You can see the mountain tests here, and the mountain range tests here. The most noticable difference to our readers is the section headers: I prefer the merged ones, because "Highest point" and "Geography" are clearer than what we have today in Infobox mountain.

I can see some advantages in merging:
 * 1) The formatting of both mountains and mountain ranges is now the same: uniformity is good.
 * 2) We only have one infobox to maintain, not two.
 * 3) Massifs and ridges, which have properties of both mountains and mountain ranges, will have less awkward infoboxes. I've heard editors complain that they had to use mountain ranges before, which was unnatural.
 * 4) Some of the range parameters (the geographic parameters: country, state, county, etc.; biome) would be nice to have in the mountain infoboxes.

The one disadvantage I can see is that some editors may misuse the range_lat_d parameter family.

I propose replacing contents of Infobox mountain with User:Hike395/MtnComboBox, and have Infobox mountain range then redirect to Infobox mountain. There is one minor conflict in parameters: region in Infobox mountain will have to be replaced with region_code. I can run AWB to fix this.

What do other editors think? —hike395 (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment reserving my vote for now. One issue I have with this is that many mountains in my area of interest (BC/Pacific Northwest, which has lots of mountains) is that many aren't part of a mountain range, or are on landforms, particularly plateaux, of other kinds.  I'm unaware of there being an  though maybe if there is, that could be rolled into or considered as part of these deliberations.  Also seem my comments on Template talk:Infobox islands though my concern there has to do with settlements rather than mountains-on-islands (most of those would be part of something like the Vancouver Island Ranges or Insular Mountains "metarange" but others, again, will be within landforms such as the Georgia Depression.Skookum1 (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The range_lat_d issue could be solved if that were to be just renamed. Instead of range_lat_d, which would appear under "Range coordinates" in the "Geography" section, why not choose a different parameter name that displays "Coordinates" like what exists in the "Highest point" section? That way it won't be conflicting with mountains which are not ranges.  Volcano guy  15:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't merge. Whilst there is some overlap in terms of parameters, which is good for the template technician, I think there is merit in keeping them separate because it's better for the ordinary user. In the vast majority of cases the difference between a range and a mountain is clear and as the individual templates are developed the divergence between them is likely to increase. If we merge them we could end up with similar problems to the horrible Template:Geobox that tries to be all things to all men and is just long, unwieldy and often doesn't meet the many different needs it serves. Bermicourt (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The majority of parameters in both infoboxes do not overlap. As Hike395 has stated, ridges and massifs have properties of both mountains and mountain ranges and as a result Infobox mountain and Infobox mountain range are awkward to use in such articles. If both templates are merged into one template that problem would be fixed. Geobox? LOL! This is far from Geobox since the two templates both have something to do with mountains.  Volcano guy  20:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And having separate Infoboxes for mountains and mountains ranges just doesn't make sense. If there should be a separate Infobox for mountain ranges why is there no Infobox for lake ranges? Well they might not be called "lake ranges" but there are names for series of lakes in a specific area, an example being the Summit Lakes which refers to a group of two lakes. But guess what Infobox body of water is used in such articles, not something like "Infobox lake range". As you can see, Infobox body of water can refer to a number of things, including lakes, bays, oceans and similar water bodies. Each different water body does not have its own Infobox because they are not necessary; a different body of water is still a body of water and a mountain range are still mountains.  Volcano guy  20:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bermicourt that Geobox is a nightmare. In fact, Infobox mountain range was originally designed to replace mountain ranges described by Geobox, but made to have a design very similar to Infobox mountain. In retrospect, I think that forking Infobox mountain was not necessary. There is goodness in both infoboxes, and the combination would be better (and only have minimal extra possibilities for misuse, unlike Geobox. —hike395 (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support as the merge proposer.  Volcano guy  22:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're supposed to do this. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Disregard the preceding; I misunderstood what you meant.
 * Just to clarify for other editors: VolcanoGuy had the idea, but the proposal seems to have been submitted by Hike395. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a merge would be appropriate, as a single template that supports a set of mountains, which may include one or more mountains. —PC-XT+ 08:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * support, seems like a good idea. Frietjes (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral but leaning to support at present as I have a number of comments/concerns that need to be discussed. First though, kudos to hike395 for an excellent job of working on the combined template (with input from VolcanoGuy). I agree with consolidating to one infobox but the proposed new template generates some awkward results (IMHO):
 * Adding the "Highest point" heading for a majority of the mountains that really only have the one high point adds clutter. If we want to go that route, we should consider adding some parameters for significant lower points (e.g. On Mt. Everest, we have the Hillary Step, South Summit, South Col). The highest point header should then only be added if there is at least one secondary high point specified. On the downside though this could be considered going down the "parameters for everything" infobox type that I really don't like much for the most part. For me, the point of infoboxes is to provide a terse summary of the common attributes of general interest to most. When I see some of the huge infoboxes (e.g. for cities/states/provinces), I eventually have the tendency to ignore them as there's just too much detail in there that I don't care about that I have to jump over. It's "too much work" to find something. This though is also the drawback of going to a combo template which describes multiple mountain landforms and thus the need for more and more parameters to denote the differentiating features of each subtype (e.g. the extra parameters for volcanoes – not picking on them, just using as example).
 * One thing I did like about Geobox is the support for breaking up the location into country, state/province, county, etc. Same as what hike395 mentioned in point #4 of the proposal I think. The mountain infobox on the German Wiki site supports this and probably some of the other language sites as well.
 * I definitely like changing the "Location" header to "Geography". I recall this is something that was discussed in a previous conversion discussion but we really couldn't decide on a better name at the time.
 * In the Sunwapta Peak comparison example, why is "Easiest route" split between two lines for the Combo template?
 * Saying "Parent range" instead of simply "Range" for proper singular mountains within a range just seems to make it sound awkward and a bit confusing (idk, maybe it's just me). It makes sense for mountain ranges but not specific mountains. Parent range is ambiguous for a mountain because do you mean its immediate enclosing range or the parent of that range or the top parent? For example, are we supposed to use Front Ranges, Canadian Rockies or Rocky Mountains? Adding "Parent" just adds confusion (which reminds me of the varying definitions of parent peak where we have people using different definitions when they add it to the infobox but that can be a separate discussion).
 * RedWolf (talk) 05:57, 11 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.