Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 September 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 27
September 29 >

September 28

[edit]

Template:Infobox civilian attack

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 01:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox civilian attack with Template:Infobox event.
Template:Infobox civilian attack has a lot of overlap with Template:Infobox event with Template:Infobox civilian attack having just a few parameters that Template:Infobox event could have but just doesn't. On some of my personal wikis I have mostly replaced Template:Infobox civilian attack with Template:Infobox event already. I also think Template:Infobox event looks better as well. Leonard LMT (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does it look better? What are the downsides of merging these templates? What are the advantages? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose – I left a brief comment touching upon my reason, but essentially, I can see the utility of having two separate infoboxes as someone whose primary contributions to Wikipedia focus on articles pertaining to crimes and criminals. The criminal events relevant to my edits are very different from events like natural disasters. I'm not sure I feel strongly enough in my opposition to vote "strongly oppose" or "very strongly oppose," though. Afddiary (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The event template is extremely ugly and I despise having to use it in any instance as an editor of many relevant articles. We have had this argument twice before. Civ attack is a more specific usage with different parameters, tailored to its usage. I like it better. Several of the relevant civ attack parameters would be weird on the event one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox event looks better than Template:Infobox civilian attack as the casualties section is actually highlighted. (See Template:Infobox event's example
As for Template:Infobox civilian attack it only has 10 parameters (that I counted) that Template:Infobox event doesn't have:
  • partof
  • alt(same just named diffrently image_alt)
  • map
  • map_size
  • map_alt
  • map_caption
  • fatalities (event has reported deaths)
  • injuries (reported injuries)
  • victims (can be under casualties1)
  • perpetrators (event only has perpetrator)
  • assailants
  • weapons
  • numparts
  • dfens
  • judge
Quite a few of parameters already on event are arguably a little odd anyways. Not to mention I am pretty sure that some of the Russian missile strikes initially used Template:Infobox event although I could be wrong on that. Leonard LMT (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It being "highlighted" looks much worse. The template works for what it does. The template is 99% used for mass murder, crime and terrorist attacks, for which it fits the terminology. Using natural disaster terminology on murder gives the wrong impression. All those "arguably a little odd" parameters have been discussed at length. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The highlighted section makes it look better. It separates important information. Template:Infobox civilian attack has it where you can change perpetrator into perpetrators, Template:Infobox event can use the same method. Leonard LMT (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It makes it look worse! It looks like the infobox html is broken. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean sure the wording is a little off-center but that is something that can be fixed. Something is better than nothing at all. Leonard LMT (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something being what? There is no improvement. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is something being highlighted, there wasn't anything highlighted before. Leonard LMT (talk) 06:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and if we color the whole thing bright yellow it too will be "highlighted". It's ugly and not an improvement. We don't need "highlights". PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me, what is wrong with a light blue highlight? Leonard LMT (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks ugly. Infobox event is trying to be 92638739393 things and it does none of them well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think we can at least improve the descriptions on both templates so that contributors can use the most appropriate one. ElectronCompound (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The root cause behind why Template:Infobox event has a lot of overlap is because it is trying to be an infobox for too many cases/events/incidents. ElectronCompound (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attacks in which civilians were deliberately targeted (which is almost never known for sure)
  • Attacks in which most of the victims were civilians
  • Attacks in which at least one civilian died (reduction ad absurdum...)
  • Attacks described as a "attack on civilians" by most sources (hard to demonstrate convincingly and even harder to disprove)
In fact it's used for a lot of attacks in which some of the victims were civilians even if the attack also killed soldiers or military infrastructure. In view of all that, I don't see what added value this template brings and would support merging it unless we can come up with a better definition. Alaexis¿question? 10:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Name aside this is the "terrorism and murder" infobox template, for which it is relatively easy to tell the things you mentioned. Infobox event is for anything impossibly broad as Thing Happens, it's trying to be 1000 things and it does none of them well. People applying it to acts of war has been strange to me but it is mostly used for crimes. Maybe we should stop using it for war things. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for context, this template was started as Infobox terrorist attack, and then had the mass shooting Infobox merged into it. That is the purpose. Crimes. I don't think we should be using the same infobox for disasters as murders, as an editor in that field. As above I think the infobox event should probably be simplified. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep everything the way it currently is.
"Civilian attack" usually implies a human doing somthing on purpose, meanwhile "event" usually implies an accident or something that has no direct malice, like a natural disaster/phenomenon.
A mass shooting is a type of event, yes, but calling it a civilian attack simpily fits better than calling it an event, gnomesayin'? BadMombo1660 (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: per @PARAKANYAA. TheFloridaMan (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It was my understanding that originally, "civilian attack" was meant to be used only for terrorist incidents or military actions that seemed to target civilians. Yet somehow over time it has become used for purely criminal things like shootings. Those, to me, properly should be considered crimes and not civilian attacks.

    I do not just think the event infobox can handle this; I know it can because we've managed to make {{infobox person}} capable of handling criminals as easily as it does celebrities and politicians to the point that {{infobox criminal}} is dropping out of use. So, too, can the event infobox. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case Apart from this, what indicates that Infobox criminal is dropping out of use? I'm an active editor of the crime wikiproject and I haven't seen that at all. It has nearly 7000 transclusions. And yes, we could, but that doesn't mean we should. We could eliminate all infoboxes into one megainfobox. We should not do that. In this case especially I don't see a compelling reason for throwing natural disasters, murders, and every Thing That Happens, into the same template.
And it's the terrorist attack and the mass shooting infobox merged. I do not know or understand why people use it for military actions. We could call it "infobox crime" I guess, which is probably more accurately reflective of its purpose, but crime carries a legal meaning that attack does not have. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any attacks that have not been crimes, regardless of whether they were prosecuted or not? Daniel Case (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can think of, and a glance over the first few pages of transclusions does not find any. But if someone is a BLP related to the article just the usage of the word "crime" has concerns. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running with your {{infobox person}} example, it would be better if we made Template:Infobox event compatible modules (or child or nested infobox) than merging Template:Infobox civilian attack with Template:Infobox event. ElectronCompound (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JD John M. Turner (talk) 03:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Chapter disambiguation pages

[edit]

Since this navbox template is intended to link disambiguation pages and to be transcluded in the article namespace, there's an issue with this template because it will have to violate at least one of the following two guidelines at any given time: WP:BRINT and WP:INTDABLINK. At the present time, the template violates WP:BRINT since there are piped links to redirects instead of linking directly to some of the respective disambiguation pages in order to meet WP:INTDABLINK, but in the process violates WP:BRINT since direct links to pages should be used (so that the viewed page appears as unclickable bold in the navbox when currently viewing that page.) In order to fix this issue, the only resolution I see is to delete this template and replace their transclusions on each page with respective {{Intitle}}, {{Lookfrom}}, or similar templates. Steel1943 (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, the current setup of the template also violates WP:INTDABLINK since the links to the disambiguation page redirects are piped, but not in hatnotes; If the link is not in a hatnote, then the redirect is supposed to be linked to directly without link piping. Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a somewhat reductive reading. The template is a navigation template, it's not performing a disambiguation function itself. Therefore:
Keep. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
PS I fixed the BRINT issue. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Okay, but your edit introduced additional/different WP:INTDABLINK issues since you directly linked to disambiguation page titles that do not include "(disambiguation)" in them, and since this navbox is transcluded on pages in the article namespace. Again, this proves that it is impossible for this navbox to not have any WP:BRINT or WP:INTDABLINK issues, and I would not be surprised if an editor who watches WP:DPL or WP:TDD reverts your edit. Steel1943 (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure enough, the edit was reverted by The Banner: [1]. Steel1943 (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the issues are with WP:BRINT and WP:INTDABLINK then just fix it. The template is useful in offering navigation between related pages, which otherwise requires additional wasted editorial time. I see no real argument here other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Gonnym (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If the issues are with WP:BRINT and WP:INTDABLINK then just fix it." My argument here is that they can't be fixed. Fixing one breaks the other. In fact, I don't recall ever seeing a navbox on a disambiguation page until I ran across this template, and this problem probably explains why. Steel1943 (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The template isn't what's broken, it's the bot that is malfunctioning. The bot should be fixed. Or, the links that work perfectly fine with "(disambiguation)" at the end, can continue doing so. I fail to see how that was an issue. Gonnym (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...Maybe WP:BRINT??? Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What purpose does this template serve? I can see no meaningful use of this template. The Banner talk 18:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Navbox can help you see what purpose a navigation template serves. Gonnym (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. But this is a template to "navigate" among a certain type of disambiguation pages. Not based on content, but on the type of links. The Banner talk 19:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a reasonable likelihood that someone wanting to look at one chapter disambiguation page might want to look at others. I'm not 100% convinced by navboxes, but given that we have them, this is not a bad use case. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
It sounds like an otherstuff-argument, but the next step will be an navigation template for all surname-disambiguation pages? The Banner talk 11:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point right there: This navigation template should probably be replaced with a category. Steel1943 (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template is clearly a useful navigation template, and none of the TFD reasons appear to apply. If there are problems with the content of the template, they should be fixed (the link to Chapter Eight stands out as different). If two guidelines are in conflict with each other, deleting this useful template will not fix that problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ukrainian Figure Skating Championships

[edit]

Template consists of mostly redlinks and circular redirects. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are 11 redlinks and 3 redirects (which are not circular) and 12 articles. We could remove the redlinks, or leave them in per WP:REDLINK. Incidentally you created at least one of the redirects. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I see 13 valid blue links, 3 redirects that better would have been red links and 11 red links. There is clearly enough content here. The Banner talk 19:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC) The Banner talk 19:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bibliography CP/CMS

[edit]

Boilerplate lists of references are not a sensible thing to templateise: article references should be specific, and this is just an ever-expanding standalone bibliography. Should be transcluded and then deleted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diplomatic missions of Bahrain

[edit]

Not much point for a nav box with just 2 English entries. LibStar (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gospel of Matthew Chapters

[edit]

Nominated for deletion by Gonnym at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 August 28#Template:Matthew 16 because it is redundant to the chapter links on Template:Gospel of Matthew (which is also on all these pages) and is in a less desirable format. I agree; there are too many nav templates for these articles. -- Beland (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would have closed that discussion differently if the other templates had been nominated and fully discussed. @Beland, please consider adding those also so a decision can be made based on the full set. Izno (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The largest area of non-overlap between the per-chapter and per-book nav templates are links to articles on individual verses. In many cases, we have per-event articles (e.g. nativity, resurrection, preaching on a boat) that already cover the same verses in an appropriate level of detail. Before opening a discussion on mass merge of per-chapter nav templates, I think it would be helpful to go through and see which per-verse articles have already been merged and which need to be merged (and to do so). Once that's done I think we'll probably have near-100% overlap and the naturalness of a merge should be more obvious. -- Beland (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, actually it appears that per-chapter nav templates for Matthew 17 thru 26 were never created in the first place. I have gone through the remainder and dropped all the links to per-verse articles that are now just redirects, but there are many per-verse articles still to merge. In the meantime, I don't think it makes sense to keep the per-chapter nav templates (like 13 and 16) which are nearly empty. -- Beland (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be a given that per verse articles should be merged. There were a number of excellent verse articles that were deleted years ago, and I fear that there is a tendency to remove bible related content on Wikipedia. The Bible, specifically the New Testament, and even more specifically the Gospels are the most studied, researched, and commented on works in history. It is pretty certain that every verse of the Gospels is WP:NOTABLE. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Merge (if there is something to merge) into Template:Gospel of Matthew. The Banner talk 20:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the above template proposed by The Banner. Cheers! Johnson524 13:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Epistle to the Galatians

[edit]

Most of the links of this template were removed because they were either not really appropriate or because articles got merged. The remaining articles linked from this template are linked from the text in the right places. Given that there are only four and they are somewhat random, I think this template is no longer needed. The articles linked to from here already prominently link back to Epistle to the Galatians. -- Beland (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_28&oldid=1248898972"