Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 7

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< May 6 May 8 >

May 7

edit

Template:Main article interwiki

edit
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) 01:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Main article interwiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one use, on Highway location marker. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — let's not encourage linking to non-en sites in these templates. In fact, I don't know how to link interlanguage from a WP:MOS view (how it's kosher now). --Izno (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete main articles cannot be in another language. It would have to be an "also see this" thing -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Main article" should refer to an article on the English-language Wikipedia, though I suppose a "See also" interlanguage link could be appropriate. I don't think any existing guideline coves this sort of thing: H:ILL refers to inline interlanguage links but does not mention hatnotes, while WP:HAT advises against red links and external links but says nothing about interlanguage links. There is some recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote that may be relevant, I will leave a note about this TfD there. PC78 (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Move to Template:See also interwiki. Comments above don't explain why articles in other languages should not be linked in prominent places, and there's a good reason why this should be done: allowing readers to find the most relevant information for the topic they're interested in.
In sections or topics which are specific to some country or language (such as the Netherlands highways or the Polish birds), the Wikipedia article for that language is the most relevant place to expand that information; providing a direct link at the location where the reader is reading about the topic should be prerefred to having it at periferal places such as the left column bar or the External link section. Having a multilingual project should be an asset to take advantage of, not something to hide under the rug. Diego (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This does not serve the readership. "Main" content cannot be in another language, since a monoglot anglophone will not be able to access it. If "main" content is in another language, then it is not main content, therefore this template is wrong. It cannot be "main"; it might be "seealso", but it is definitely not "main" ; -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It serves the readership who knows that other language, which is most likely the people reading the section related to that country. If "main" content is in another language, then it is not main content, therefore this template is wrong. That's a non-sequitur. Where does this logic that "content in other languages is not valid content" come from? It's the basis of all the Delete comments, but it's unexplained. a monoglot anglophone will not be able to access it So your argument is that, because the content is not useful to a subset of the readership, it should be taken away from those who could make good use of it? Diego (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be main because it cannot be usable to the entire population that accesses English Wikipedia. that being many people who know multiple languages, but do not know every language in the world. Therefore almost all readers will not be able to read any single non-English main, since no one knows every language, which is needed to be able to use this template. Assuming that everyone reading any articles knows every language in the world is the wrong thing to do. Therefore it cannot be a main, since mains should be readable most of the readership. This is English Wikipedia, not Multilingual Wikipedia, all main content should conform to being English accessible, because the readership for English Wikipedia is only expected to be able to read English. We do not serve the readership by assuming they can read every language in the world. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's patently absurd. The people using the link does not need to know *all* the languages that can potentially be used, only the one actually used at the particular language of that link; as I said, the people who would benefit the most from one link is the people most likely to already know the target language. The idea that *all* content in Wikipedia should be useful to *all* readers is nonsensical - you cannot forbid content that requires some pre-existing knowledge, since that would rule out almost all obscure knowledge. This is English Wikipedia, not Multilingual Wikipedia, all main content should conform to being English accessible By that logic, we shouldn't have interwiki links either. Diego (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (after some thought). I don't believe there is any genuine need for this. The template has been kicking around for about two years and has just one use in Highway location marker, but that already has a standard interwiki link to the Dutch page and I don't see any compelling argument to have the same link repeated in the main text. Even if that link was valid, a single use does not make this template necessary, it would be perfectly sufficient to use {{hatnote}}. Also, to reiterate what was said above I think that "main article" should exclusively refer to an article here on the English-language Wikipedia, though a "see also" link would be fine. PC78 (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on that feeling that links should be limited to here on the English-language Wikipedia instead of here on Wikipedia? Diego (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because each language edition of Wikipedia is a separate entity, because it's not our job here to cater for readers of other languages. {{Main}} should be used "in a summary section for which there is also a separate article on the subject", but the idea that such a "main article" can be in a different language on a different Wikipedia seems like a non-sequitur to me. The article in question already has a standard interwiki to the Dutch article, which should be sufficient for any Dutch readers looking for futher information. If there is anything in the Dutch article that can be translated and used here, we have {{Expand Dutch}}. PC78 (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) The problem with standard interwiki links is the reason why we don't have only See also sections and we use hat notes instead: they provide no context of what you will find at the target article, in the same way that hat notes do.
2) Ok, creating a stub might work; but why have such intermediate step with little to no content, and what to do in cases where the English Wikipedia has all the content already translated, but the major interest is in having access to the content in its original language - like in Polish birds?
3) The major objection to this template seems to be against the idea of calling primary ("main") the related content. I've changed my comment to "Move", renaming the template as a See Also as the IP editor and PC78 both suggested, so that it can be used without implying that English Wikipedia editors are responsible for what can be found at the other side. Diego (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A standard interwiki should merely be the same article in another language, so I don't really understand your problem with regards to "context". Why would Polish birds need additional access to the Polish-language article? PC78 (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the lede, you'll see that it informs the reader about the existence of the Polish and corresponding scientific names of the birds in the linked article. That sort of thing can't be done with the default interwiki links. Diego (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's an editorial issue though. If the information is relevant it should be added here, and that's what the {{expand language}} series of templates is for. PC78 (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, you'd copy the content in another language to the English Wikipedia, rather than sending interested readers to the place where it's already hosted? That's the opposite of what the IP editor said, who argued that all content should be readable by monoglot anglophones and thus opposed including content written in other languages. Diego (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Translate, not copy. But if the Polish names are relevant to that particular article (which seems reasonable given the context) then there's no reason why they couldn't or shouldn't be included here. That's normal practise in my experience (see List of Polish flags, for example), and not what the IP was refering to. PC78 (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That assumes that all such content could be translated or copied, and that it makes sense to do so. What if there's value in linking to the whole article in its original language -so that readers can access it in full, and it doesn't make sense to just copy the whole content to the English Wikipedia? What if the content are images or text which are copyrighted in the country of one Wikipedia and not the other (that's a fairly frequent case)? What if the English Wikipedia happens to have such content covered as a section instead of as a whole article (so that an Interkiwi link between different articles doesn't make sense), as with the Dutch highways? In such cases, a "See also" link is what works best. By deleting the template (wich includes the "see also" version as well as many other variations, not merely the "main" interwiki link that others have !voted to delete), you'll be establishing a precedent that this is an unacceptable solution. Diego (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But we already have standard interwiki links, so who are you trying to serve by wanting more prominent interwikis within the article? This is the English-language Wikipedia, we shouldn't expect our readers to understand any other language and we shouldn't make allowances for those that do. Some of your "what if's" seem like hypothetical situations and I don't see any point in going down that road, I've already commented on the two given examples and in both cases I can't see any justification for having an interwiki hatnote in addition to the usual interwiki links. PC78 (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • who are you trying to serve by wanting more prominent interwikis within the article? I've already answered that.
  • This is the English-language Wikipedia, we shouldn't expect our readers to understand any other language We aren't, the link is not required to be used by all readers.
  • and we shouldn't make allowances for those that do One more time: why not?
  • Some of your "what if's" seem like hypothetical situations ...and some are actual occurrences. Can you guarantee that no value can be found for such "see also" links, ever, in all possible circumstances, so that it makes sense to forbid those kind of links?
  • I've already commented on the two given examples and in both cases I can't see any justification for having an interwiki hatnote Then let's agree to disagree, since I do find such value, as did the other editors arguing for the inclusion of those links in the respective talk pages (one remains as a hat note, the other was changed to a direct link). Diego (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (whack a rat) per WP:LAYOUT#Links to sister projects "Links to Wikimedia sister projects and {{Spoken Wikipedia}} should generally appear in "External links", not under "See also"." There has long been consensus that foreign language links appear on the left of the page and that they, like other sister projects, (with the exception of the dictionary, source and commons (for images)) should not appear outside external links. If someone really wants to make a connection like this then use {{see also}} (or {{main}} if appropraite) to an English language article (writing a stub if need be) and then include the links to foreign articles in the standard way. -- PBS (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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:Keeping Up Appearances

edit
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) 01:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Keeping Up Appearances (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:Population census prose

edit
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; deleted as G7 by Tom harrison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Population census prose (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

By common consensus and practice, we don't use templates like this for article content.

Perhaps that consensus should be re-evaluated (via a centralised discussion), given the opportunities offered by Lua & Wikidata (I'm neutral as to the answer).

Either way, this template has problems with its error handling, as was seen in Lemery, Batangas until I removed it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:Bangtan Boys

edit
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. North America1000 19:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bangtan Boys (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All album articles were little more than track listings and were redirected to the band's page. As a result, there is only one link left in this template. Random86 (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_7&oldid=1077821860"