Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JJMC89 (talk | contribs) at 23:12, 15 March 2019 (→Unused and redundant sports tables: Closed as delete (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< March 7 March 9 >

March 8

Template:Average temperature table

This seems totally redundant to Template:Weather Box/Module:Weather box. Also note that some of the subtemplates are making calls to a user's module sandbox. Only in use on 1 page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Autosignature

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a template to insert a signature. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:04, 8 March 2019 (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).

Unused and redundant sports tables

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused table templates. The articles in question already have the table directly implemented on the page. For example, 2016–17 Welsh Football League Division One already has a table on it that is a direct copy of {{2016–17 Welsh Football League Division One League table}}. No need for the templates. Almost feel like this can be WP:T3ed as duplicates. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:02, 11 March 2019 (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).

Template:A-League all clubs map

Unused clulb map Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Welcomeip2

Undocumented template that is better served by Template:Welcome-anon and the several more specific templates at Category:IP user welcome templates. Only used 8 times. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:London-railway-routemap

Redundant. All uses have now been replaced with {{UK-railway-routemap|cat=London}} Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Extended football GK start

unused template. No edits since creation in 2010. Remnant of the old ways of formatting. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Extended football squad 2 player

unused table template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Extended football squad minutes

unused template. No edits since creation in 2009. Remnant of the old ways of formatting. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EstcatUkrgovernorateDecade

unused category navigation template. Redundant. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EstcatUkrgovernorate

unused category navigation template. Redundant. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ethnic groups in Scotland

unused population table Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Essayproposal

Unused and long deprecated. No reason to keep it just so it can be marked as historical Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ETS

Unused template that is just a stylized wikilink Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EB Games Expo 2015

Unused event map. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EC Hungaria

unused sidebar. No information on context. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dukes of Richmond

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused. out of date - 10th Duke died in 2017. Succession boxes seem to be preferred. Nigej (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DiscatBC

Unused navigation template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dimmed namespace

Unused template. Was previously nominated and kept in June 2017 because people foresaw a possible use. A year and a half later and still unused. Serves no purpose. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; I don't understand the point of dimming a namespace name while using the rest of the BASEPAGENAME. If someone found a use, rather than offering speculation like in the previous TFD, I would happily change my vote. Nyttend (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Denmark and the EU

unused sidebar template. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DecadeYears US

unused and redundant template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Debate summary

Unused template with no real purpose... Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Daylight saving in time zone/techdoc

unused supplementary documentation Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DateheaderDdMY

Unused date template. no edits since creation in 2012 Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Data Africa

Unused template with no edits since creation in 2010. No longer the way things are done. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DBR SQL

unused source language template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ctime:06

unused time template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cricketyearcat

unused and reduntant to year in cat Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cow-Toe Barnstar

unused non-functional template Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused. Nigej (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused CC templates

All of these are unused and obsolete. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Just because the licenses are obsolete doesn't mean that the templates are. If an editor comes across an image licensed under one of these licenses, they shouldn't have to create a template from scratch. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 14:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We accept images with these licenses (even if you upload one with {{cc-by-sa}}, it won't get deleted on licensing grounds), and we shouldn't make it nearly impossible for people to upload files with these licenses. We strongly encourage people to put freely licensed images on Commons, but we don't mandate that files with a certain license be uploaded there. Nyttend (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1500sProtestantwomen

More suitable to categorise this as Category:16th-century Protestant women. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep--I made this template for women who were a factor in the Reformation, either theological or political. You can't call them all "Reformers" because that would be only the theologians and would also exclude the ones whose role included influencing which type of Protestant church there would be. I went through the plausible 16th century women by nationality categories as well as the list on Women as theological figures to find possibilities. I did not include ones that were women who just happened to be Protestant because it was common in their area. The title of the template is now 16th century Protestant women in the Reformation and I have added four subcategories--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just a seemingly random set of women from the 16th century. Either there should be article about whatever links them or, failing that, a category for them will suffice. Nigej (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Jane Austen character

Propose merging Template:Infobox Jane Austen character with Template:Infobox character.

Per WP:INFOCOL. 30 uses. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree for moment. There are lots of unique fields in Jane Austen character that aren't in character infobox. How will all those fields get merged?--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of these (|Height=, |Income=, |LondonResidence= for example) are fancruft and should be discarded. The rest would be included, as in any merge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Tom (LT): I tend to agree with what Pigsonthewing said. Can you be most specific than lots of unique fields? Which specific fields are you worried about. Certainly don't want to delete important data, but I think most of the fields in question are WP:FANCRUFT. Let me know your thoughts. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Tom (LT): bump... Can you expand your comments? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure. You have stated these could be merged, without providing any details about lots of fields which are different. Andy has said in a general way that lots of the varied ones can be discarded and you have said that you agree. I feel the main point of this particular merge is ideological, however I don't think in this particular circumstance it's practical given the wide discrepancy. I think it will make the reading experience worse and because of the discrepancies, also make the editing experience more confusing. I support other mergers of a similar ilk but for stated reasons oppose this one at this time.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and not merge - Most of the unique parameters here are trivia and uselss for an infobox such as |Height=, |Income=, |Education=, |LondonResidence=, |FavoritePasttimes=, |Age=. These should be removed and not added. Similar, |Birth= and |Death= were not included in the current infobox and it seems this was done on purpose and should not be added. --Gonnym (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree Most of the fields in the character infobox are irrelevant to Jane Austen characters and will only make life more difficult for prospective Austen editors. I agree that some of the Jane Austen fields are unnecessary. e.g. age, birth, death are unhelpful; height irrelevant; romantic interest and favourite pastimes are probably fancruft. Income is relevant, I think, as this is a major feature in Austen's writings and is indicative of social status, which is also very important. Family tree type info could benefit from addition of other significant relatives. Petrosbizar (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Petrosbizar: is there a reason that this information cannot simply be displayed using |data1=, |data2=, etc? That is the entire point of having those parameters on {{Infobox character}}. Every series/show has a few custom parameters so those were added so that EVERY character type doesn't need its own infobox. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Zackmann08: 1. Thanks for your comment. That sounds perfectly reasonable. 2. What you say seems to reinforce the idea of merging with, say, similar groups of novels but not with the overly large one at present suggested. 3. In practice, I'm finding the Austen Character box to be inconsistent in management (that may be my lack of experience with infoboxes). For example, in the Fanny Price infobox there is a line available for Guardian. It is filled in with the name of Sir Thomas Bertram, but this does not appear in the box. Advice?Petrosbizar (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. All of the extra parameters, including |Income=, seem quite crufty to me. But any detail deemed appropriate can certainly be accommodated with the |dataX= parameters.— TAnthonyTalk 16:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and remove fan-centric parameters but allow |income= (in some form). It does tend to be a big aspect of some authors' character-building. Socialist authors, for example. I'd prefer something like |social status= or |social_class=, though. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mr. Guye: |social status= sounds more like "is that character single or married?" so |social class= would be better and it does make it much more encyclopidiac than "income". One issue though is how do you assign that without WP:OR? What would "£50 per annum" at Elizabeth Bennet be converted to? --Gonnym (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 08:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per TAnthony and WP:WAF. --Izno (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It sure sounds as if the unique features of this infobox really don't belong in an infobox at all. I'm routinely unimpressed by the concept of merging almost everything into a few massive templates, since such a situation creates a good deal of unneeded complexity, but when all the important parameters are already present elsewhere, it makes sense to use the other template and discard the trivia. Nyttend (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bedrock

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

not everything needs a navbox. DannyS712 (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2019 (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).

Template:Uw-navbox

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad idea. An author of an article may not even know such a navigation box exists, especially newer editors. A navbox could end up being created after the article but not added to the article, but someone come across the article not seeing a navbox can warn the original author? What if someone removes the navbox from a navbox (either purposely or accidentally) and it isn't noticed? Because there isn't one, we can use this to warn the author for not adding one? Note that this warning template was created by someone who creates a lot of navboxes. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:32, 8 March 2019 (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).

Template:Bufo

Unused navbox with no parent article. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why is it just selected toad species, rather than everything in the genus? If there are too many to provide a complete list, we need to have inclusion criteria (why these ones are more link-worthy than others), but no criteria are given or apparent. Nyttend (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Headless TOC

Unnecessary Lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Glossing abbreviations

Superseded per its own documentation. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm the user who created the template that I believe supersedes this, and I'm the one who replaced all its uses and then cheekily marked it as superseded. Now, if I'd thought it would be a good idea to delete this module I would have nominated it myself. And if I'd known that it would get nominated as "unused", I would have left one or two uses, to spare us having to debate it now. Why don't I think it's a good idea to delete it? The template that I created to replace it is a wrapper for one big complex module that also does other things; it's definitely more versatile and I like to think it's better, but it's also more complicated – it takes time for anyone to figure it out, it's more difficult to edit, it's easier to break. I don't like the idea that my complicated tool should be the only one available out there. It's possible someone would get unhappy about it and will want it to behave in a different way: then they're much better off building on this dedicated, simple and easy module than on mine. It's good to have more than one tool out there to do the same job, especially if there's such a stark difference in complexity. I know that to the regular participant here this argument doesn't sound like much – sure, there's presumably no actual use for this module now, but there's also no harm in keeping it, is there? I believe there are more long-term benefits in having access to an open and diverse set of templates, than in keeping everything absolutely tidy. – Uanfala (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Module cannot userfy
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08: Moving Module:Sandbox/DannyS712/learning to User:DannyS712/module/actual results in "Scribunto" content is not allowed on page User:DannyS712/module/actual in slot "main". If you are going to be critiquing how familiar others are with the process, you might want to double check that you are rights. But, modules can be moved to a subpage of Module:Sandbox, effectively allowing users to have their own sandbox modules, but not technically being userfied. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to user's sandbox (Module:Sandbox/Erutuon) or delete. Whatever original intention Uanfala had matters not anymore. The new module has replaced all usages and we shouldn't have 2 modules doing the same thing and having two different code bases. --Gonnym (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Punjab Gharana Lineage Tree

Unused navbox, no parent article, mostly redlinks. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GP3 Series circuits

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Franchises by Irem

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as T3 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:17, 8 March 2019 (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).

Template:FoxMemorial 2008

Unused navbox with no parent article. There is no page for Fox Memorial (redirects to league). WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Rave/class

unused classification template for inactive project Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Rivers/rater-data.js

unused raw javascript Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't javascript, it's JSON incorrectly labelled as Javascript. Neutral on deletion for now, but the content model should be changed if kept. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to me to me part of User:Kephir/gadgets/rater.js, however the owner of that gadget has been inactive since 2017. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed the use of it. The gadget works fine today. We should indeed change the contentmodel; the gadget doesn't look like it cares about the contentmodel and JSON would be more correct here. --Izno (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but change content model) per Izno: component of a still-in-use and working gadget. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_8&oldid=887955932"