Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 November 19: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 64: Line 64:
*:See also [[User talk:ArcMachaon#Template:Infobox gender and sexual identity|discussion here]] from 3 years ago [[User:ArcMachaon|ArcMachaon]] ([[User talk:ArcMachaon|talk]]) 00:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
*:See also [[User talk:ArcMachaon#Template:Infobox gender and sexual identity|discussion here]] from 3 years ago [[User:ArcMachaon|ArcMachaon]] ([[User talk:ArcMachaon|talk]]) 00:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per MikutoH and ArcMachaon. Genders and sexualities are identities, they are not comparable to vague emotions or ideologies; there are numerous articles where this infobox is useful. [[User:HaiFire3344|HaiFire3344]] ([[User talk:HaiFire3344|talk]]) 19:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per MikutoH and ArcMachaon. Genders and sexualities are identities, they are not comparable to vague emotions or ideologies; there are numerous articles where this infobox is useful. [[User:HaiFire3344|HaiFire3344]] ([[User talk:HaiFire3344|talk]]) 19:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. I understand the argument for its usefulness on articles like [[Hijra (South Asia)]], but I do not agree with it. All the information currently in the infobox is done much better justice in the lead and body. The definition provided in the infobox not only is what should be covered by the very first sentence in the article, but is also a worse version of it (it doesn't mention the intentional community aspect of the identity, which seems quite central). I don't even understand what "classification" is supposed to be. I guess it's just meant to separate gender and sexual identities, but it seems completely useless. Synonyms can be better covered in prose, with eventual nuances and all. "Associated terms" is incredibly vague, and does not at all explain how they are associated, or what the nuances are. The demographics section is a mess, which makes sense because demographics of queer populations rarely are unambiguous. That the hijra are associated with South Asian culture should be clear from the first sentence or two. The figure for India says in a footnote that it applies to Southeast Asia, which according to [[Southeast Asia|our article]] doesn't even include India! It says they are "legally recognized" in several countries, but the body explains they do not have the right to vote! And saying they have "limited" protection tells us nothing at all. Overall, this template encourages useless and even harmful denuancing of information that inherently requires nuance. <b style="font-family:Monospace">-- [[User:Maddy from Celeste|Maddy from Celeste]] ([[User talk:Maddy from Celeste|WAVEDASH]])</b> 10:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


==== [[Template:IATA and ICAO code]] ====
==== [[Template:IATA and ICAO code]] ====

Revision as of 10:27, 28 November 2023

Single-page use only in draft space. Izno (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chitral District was split into Upper Chitral District and Lower Chitral District in 2018, and so should this template be split. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 19:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 delete. plicit 23:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Coast League was just recently deleted and this league is defunct. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2023 (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.
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. plicit 23:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too large to provide a useful navigation function. We don't need a navbox for every program ever on the network, and we don't do this for other major networks. Best left for list or category navigation, the same way we would for {{ABCNetwork Shows (current and upcoming)}}, List of programs previously broadcast by ABC (American TV network) and Category:American Broadcasting Company original programming. --woodensuperman 11:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This was split out from currently running series, after agreement, for this exact reason. There is no reason to delete. And other networks not doing this is an WP:OSE argument and not a valid rationale for deletion. Amaury19:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No the reason to delete is that it does not perform a useful navigational aid, the whole point of a navbox. The same reason we don't have other navboxes of this kind, it's not an WP:OSE argument at all. Who actually wants to navigate in this way between these articles? WP:NAVBOXCREEP. --woodensuperman 08:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While in most cases this large a navbox indicates it's too large a category to be useful I don't think that's the case here. It's a likely that people want to go from one show they grew up with to another and this template fascilitates this more conveniently than leaving the page for a category or list and coming back. Also since most people will probably mainly be interested in a particular time period the number of links they have to look at is a lot more manageable than it may seem at first.
A split may however be desirable just based on the size, but I don't know enough about Nickelodeon to know what if any categorization is appropriate, but categories like sitcoms, live action and animated comes to mind. --Trialpears (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a proposal to create several Templates for decades. Since if the problem is that it looks too long (and it will be even longer in the future), maybe we could create a template for "Former Nickelodeon original series (1970s-1980s)", another for "Former Nickelodeon original series (1990s)", others for "(2000s)", "(2010s)", "(2020s)".
    Or since the decades are mentioned, without the need to include the word "Former", just "Nickelodeon original series ('Decade')", and in this way, in the case of "(2020s)", combine it with the template of current programming, adding sections for "Current", "Ended", and "Upcoming". BrookTheHumming (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But then by limiting by decades you're diminishing what little dubious navigational benefit there is by limiting the scope further. This is why lists and categories are best. --woodensuperman 16:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:10, 19 November 2023 (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.

I'm deeply skeptical that there is enough structured data about genders and sexual identities to justify infoboxen. On some articles like Bi-curious this just wraps a flag. On others like Bisexuality it's just a flag plus a repetition of prose content from the article's lede sentence. When more detail is given, it's often original research or questionable takes, like Asexuality including demisexuality as a subcategory or Pansexuality having an ostensible "Parent category" of bisexuality (what???). Yes, these are fixable on a per-article basis, but the fundamental issue is the genders and sexualities are not cognizable things. They are vague ideas of human feelings and subcultures, no more suited for infoboxen than emotions or broad ideological movements. They cannot be reduced to simple metadata in the manner of, say, a person or country. Delete, replacing with flag images as appropriate. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 12:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WT:LGBT notified. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 12:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it seems this info-box too often becomes a WP:DISINFOBOX which aggressively attracts the marginally literate eye with apparent promises to contain a reductive summary of information; not all information can be so neatly contained. Like a bulleted list, or a timeline that substitutes for genuine history, it offers a competitive counter-article, stripped of nuance. As a substitute for accuracy and complexity, a box trumps all discourse. Zenomonoz (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it looks ridiculous having these info-boxes above two other sidebars, as on Asexuality. Incredibly distracting and takes away from the articles. Zenomonoz (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See also discussion here about disinformation and controversy and why it is still useful to have this infobox on these specific pages. ArcMachaon (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Keep the infobox is useful, especially in gender identity articles. If there's disinformation in the infoboxes, then it should be removed or discussed in the article's talk pages. The problem here's not the infobox alone. MikutoH (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it can be very useful in the articles with third gender/non-Western genders. This is particularly (although not exclusively) the case where these genders are recognised by governments. I created the infobox when I saw an infobox for ethnicity used on Hijra to try to capture numbers as recognised by the Indian and Pakistani governments (amongst others), which all recognise a third gender on official documents (which I believe counters the narrative that these are like emotions or ideological movements). If you want to remove the infobox from specific articles where they aren't useful, that is something to do on a per article basis. ArcMachaon (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See also discussion here from 3 years ago ArcMachaon (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MikutoH and ArcMachaon. Genders and sexualities are identities, they are not comparable to vague emotions or ideologies; there are numerous articles where this infobox is useful. HaiFire3344 (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I understand the argument for its usefulness on articles like Hijra (South Asia), but I do not agree with it. All the information currently in the infobox is done much better justice in the lead and body. The definition provided in the infobox not only is what should be covered by the very first sentence in the article, but is also a worse version of it (it doesn't mention the intentional community aspect of the identity, which seems quite central). I don't even understand what "classification" is supposed to be. I guess it's just meant to separate gender and sexual identities, but it seems completely useless. Synonyms can be better covered in prose, with eventual nuances and all. "Associated terms" is incredibly vague, and does not at all explain how they are associated, or what the nuances are. The demographics section is a mess, which makes sense because demographics of queer populations rarely are unambiguous. That the hijra are associated with South Asian culture should be clear from the first sentence or two. The figure for India says in a footnote that it applies to Southeast Asia, which according to our article doesn't even include India! It says they are "legally recognized" in several countries, but the body explains they do not have the right to vote! And saying they have "limited" protection tells us nothing at all. Overall, this template encourages useless and even harmful denuancing of information that inherently requires nuance. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 delete. plicit 14:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Created 5 years ago and hasn't been used other than in one sandbox and an old talk discussion. Gonnym (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2023 (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.
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 delete. plicit 14:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2023 (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.
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 delete. plicit 14:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused module. Gonnym (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2023 (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.
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 delete. plicit 14:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused portal related module. Gonnym (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2023 (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.

This is just a WP:PERFNAV --woodensuperman 12:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing more than WP:PERFNAV. --woodensuperman 12:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 delete. plicit 10:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barely used, redundant to Module:Template link general. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:03, 19 November 2023 (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.
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 delete. plicit 10:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused duplicate of Module:RFX report. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:00, 19 November 2023 (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.