Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 21

Template:1911 POV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All articles tagged with this maintenance template have been cleaned up. There are currently 0 transclusions. It is very unlikely there will ever be another tranclusion because there are few or no copied 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica articles left to be checked. I would like to propose that the template be redirected to Template:POV. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to {{POV}} as {{POV/EB1911}} and with a switch "|EB1911=yes" to activate the variant. As EB1911 is a frequently used resource for building articles in the world at large, we should expect that once in a while someone will do it. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose {{EB1911}} is a redirect to {{EB1911 poster}}, placing it into {{1911}} and {{cite EB1911}} puts needless complications into those two templates. -- PBS (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There are currently 10,000+ articles in the category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with no article parameter which means there are probably 10,000 more articles that potentially could be in this category and there are other EB articles that have not been ported into this encyclopedia which may be when they are placed on Wikisource. The category is useful because there is a difference between POV introduced by editors and a POV introduced by copying text from an old PD source. Usually this has to do with the incorporation of Edwardian opinions on the importance of a subject or an outdated moral POV while inter-editorial disputes tend to be about modern political divisions/modern nationalism etc. -- PBS (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-weighted (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template addresses the same issue as Template:Unbalanced. There is just a minor wording difference between the two. I would like to propose that the two templates be merged together. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• They're not interchangeable. {{Unbalanced}} specifically addresses viewpoints and indicated an editorial bias from the point of view of one side of an argument; {{Cleanup-weighted}} addresses subject matter, and is useful on those occasions where an article is biased not in terms of editorial opinion, but more in terms of the importance given to specific parts of the subject. If the article on Bill Clinton was primarily written as an attack article, dealing with his bad points but not his good, it would require {{unbalanced}}. If it dealt with his time as Governor of Arkansas more than his presidency, it would need {{cleanup-weighted}}. Grutness...wha? 04:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Template:Unbalanced is a bit more generic in wording.

• Template:Unbalanced "may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints"
• Template:Cleanup-weighted "is weighted too heavily toward only one aspect of its subject"
• Template:Undue "lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters"

We have three templates intended to deal with the undue weight issue. Unbalanced and Undue have a near exact wording. Cleanup-weighted has a few minor differences, most notably it primarily explains that there is a specific area where the article is lacking proper weight. Do we really need three maintenance templates to address one issue? It wouldn't be too difficult to merge Unbalanced and Undue together. And for Cleanup-weighted, we might be able to add a parameter to one of the templates to explain that it is undue because of a specific aspect. Thoughts? Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment they don't seem the same to me. {{Unbalanced}} is a {{POV}} template, while {{cleanup-weighted}} is different, such as an article on Kazakhstan covering the national hockey team for 90% of the text, clearly overly weighted to one aspect, but not necessarily unbalanced towards any particularly viewpoint. Rather, {{unbalanced}} should be merged with {{POV}} (say with "|unbalanced=yes" to add additional text to the POV message, or switch it out for a subtemplate {{POV/unbalanced}} ). 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:POV-check-section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I have added section parameters to three main maintenance templates. Now that the main templates have support for sections, these individual section templates are fairly redundant to the main templates. I would like to propose that:

• Template:POV-check-section be redirected to Template:POV-check
• Template:Generalize-section be redirected to Template:Generalize
• Template:COI-section be redirected to Template:COI Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]

I second this proposal. Especially since these templates are relatively seldom used, and the usage of a |section parameter is widely spread. Debresser (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment section templates are supposed to look like:

So... redirecting doesn't serve that purpose, an intermediate transclude that sets that up should though. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-music (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with the more-general Template:PD-old. Carnildo (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free Minnesota Historical Society image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Semmingly unused image licensing template, was this deprecated? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free television commercial (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seemingly unused Image licensing template, which is redundant to the more general template covering all TV derived screenshots. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free Indian-politician-photo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seemingly unused image licensing template , was this deprecated? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free GFDL-invariants (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seemingly unused image licensing template. Was this deprecated? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free EU website image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seemingly unused image licensing tag. Was this deprecated? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: redundant with Template:Non-free web screenshot --Carnildo (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free Disney image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seemingly unused image licensing tag, was this deprecated? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free Denver Public Library image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seemingly unused image licensing tag, was this deprecated? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 US flu pandemic image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is not used in article besides image which is outdated.JDOG555 (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]