Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 46.169.209.202 (talk) at 20:06, 9 April 2019 (Template:Cr-IPL). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

April 5

This template isn't really in use. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 21:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Implausible as it is for me to support keeping anything Neelix created, in this case I can see that even if it's not currently in use, it's a template with a legitimate use case that would be quite fiddly to recreate manually. If someone else has a claim for the name—as a three-character name it's quite valuable real estate—I'd have no issue with renaming it to something else. ‑ Iridescent 21:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to warrant a navbox. WP:NENAN --woodensuperman 11:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Completely useless template, it's easier to just use the team name rather than the template for the team. And if team name changes, that forces a new template- no such issue with just linking the name Joseph2302 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging all Template:Globalize sub-templates with the main template. See also 11 July 2010 discussion.

It seems ridiculous to me to have half a million templates that are effectively the same. So I propose that instead everything is merged to {{Globalize}}, with a new structure {{Globalize|TOPIC}}. Categorization can then be added automatically by the template, and created new categories becomes a cinch. Creating {{Globalize/Uganda}} would involve a lot more effort than simply supporting {{Globalize|Uganda}}. And we also save the trouble of having half a million templates to independently maintain, with independent talk pages, independant documentation pages, and so on. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – Sounds like a good idea to me. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good solution. Miniapolis 19:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: per nomination. I do wonder about the original purpose of all the categories, however. Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a really great suggestion that makes a lot of sense, and for the reasons proposed. Two issues that should be addressed also, @Headbomb. I suggest template works something like {{Globalize|TOPIC1|TOPIC2}} for the "Globalize X AND Y" topics above for ease of use, and added to the respective categories for topics 1 and 2 and etc. Also note that some topics eg "Globalize US" display to readers as "... United States..." on the talk page, which will need to be taken into account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom (LT) (talkcontribs) 05:18, April 6, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination. MSG17 (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Quite sensible solution. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support why isn't it already like this? --Daviddwd (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. No need for the ridiculous amount of subpages when a bit of template magic would suffice. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a basic application of common sense. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I like the idea but (correct me if I'm wrong) it seems this kind of parameter already exists in the template. The documentation states that you could write {{Globalize|article or section|area 1|area 2|area 3}}. This would indicate whether the whole article or a specific section is in question (the first parameter), and then which country or countries are being referred to (the second, third, and fourth paramters). This also seems to automatically do some categorization. In this case, it would seem a new structure isn't needed as there is already one in place, albeit the default/first parameter is regarding the article or section rather than the country. At the same time, I'm not sure why we need all those sub-templates when this solution exists; however, the sub-templates do work and are already in place, so perhaps they can be retained but the use of parameters promoted? Also, the sub-templates could make it easier to specify the area, such as "Commonwealth realms", which someone might not otherwise think to put in the parameters. ChromeGames923 (talk) 05:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Rfam box with Template:Infobox rfam.
Overlapping scope; "infobox done wrong"; latter is more systemic. Artoria2e5 🌉 13:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template arguments for migration
Rfam box Infobox rfam
acc Rfam
description Name
type RNA_type
image image
abbreviation Symbol
Length, identity, and seed are specific to alignment in one database. SS is... usually published? Not much point in indicating.
--Artoria2e5 🌉 21:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary overlap and sub-selection of Template:Super Mario. Everything on this navbar is on the parent navbar, which is not so large as to necessitate breaking them out. This navbar is simply duplicating links from another navbar on every page it is on. -- ferret (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox surname with Template:Infobox given name.
Much overlapping variables, and for a reason. In fact in many if not in most cases historically and internationally, a surname is or was a given name. It might be time to finally merge this? PPEMES (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox is redundant to just doing {{Africa in topic|Hinduism in}}. Was previously unused and all current transclusions used the above code. I attempted to CSD under T3, but a user replace the code above with this template. No reason for this template to be used at all. In my opinion this still is a WP:T3. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: mistake? Christian75 (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(The TfD said template:example (or similar) in the original tfd Christian75 (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
  • Zackmann08, I think you might find it that people will be a bit less exasperated if you listened to what they'd said to you before bombarding them with the next deletion notice. Now, as I've explained on my talk page, {{Africa in topic}} is a quick and dirty way to create a variety of navboxes that might be suitable for some circumstances, but it doesn't really wor here. See for example how this template appears on Hinduism in Sierra Leone: you see quite a few redlinks (most of them permanently so: they were formerly blue but got deleted at AfD or RfD), and most of the blue links are actually redirects, usually to broad articles where Hinduism (or the country) are only mentioned in passing. If you want a navbox consisting mostly of redirects and redlinks, then yes, {{Africa in topic}} will do just fine. But if you want a navbox that does what navboxes are expected to do – navigate between articles, then you can't easily avoid having a dedicated template like {{Hinduism in Africa}}. The situation, however, gets complicated by the existence of {{Hinduism by country}}, which I've just noticed now. In a way, this makes {{Hinduism in Africa}} (+ {{Hinduism in Oceania}} and the like) redundant. Its downside is that it is a sidebar. So the question is, do we prefer a sidebar or navboxes at the bottom of the article. Personally, I'd opt for the less intrusive navboxes, but I'd rather leave the issue to others to decide. – Uanfala (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the replacement gives a lot of red links and a lot of redirect to articles which barely mention the topic if at all. The red links will probably be (re)created. Christian75 (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If one intends to connect the various remakes of the same film, creating a character map is not the solution. Rather, one could consider creating a navbox. This film already has that. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think character maps like this should even exist. The reason of connecting the different remakes of the same film should be solved by a navbox. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox with only 4 links. WP:NENAN Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now has more links, but is still unused
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]