Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 4

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 3 January 5 >

January 4 edit

Template:Method for consensus building edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Primefac (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Created a decade ago along with the same-named essay and a raft of related procedural templates, all of which were swept up in two long-ago rounds of TfD (2010 and 2015). What remains are only the essay, this barren infobox navbox, and the nearly empty Category:Wikipedia consensus-building templates with an occupancy of: this template. (Though it does also have two populated subcats.) FeRDNYC (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • COMMENT: I nearly tagged this for G6 speedy deletion, but second-guessed myself and concluded it fell just short of that bar. Still, I don't see what purpose it serves or ever could serve Wikipedia... not following the demise of the templates it originally indexed. Total transclusions today number five: Three in creator Ikluft's user space, one from the essay, and one from the category. This infobox navbox forms one wall of a very very small echo chamber.
(Note: My nom text and this comment were subsequently edited as indicated by the crossed-out text: To correct my erronenous use of "infobox" to characterize the nature of the nominated template. It is a navbox.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only used in the one essay and is little use for navigation. The reality is that a clearer article would be a more useful way forward. Nigej (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As nom, obviously. FeRDNYC (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @FeRDNYC: You don't need to do that: unless the nomination explicitly describes a different desired outcome, such as merge, the nomination is treated as a !vote for delete - see for example #Template:THSR ridership below. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2022 (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).

Single-use weather box templates (M–R) edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 03:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this is a follow-up to the December 24 discussion. single-use weather box templates, per numerous prior discussions, these should be merged with the transcluding article and deleted. we have thousands of weatherboxes in thousands of articles, and the convention is that we put them in a separate template only when they are transcluded in more than one article. Frietjes (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Subst Delete and substitute where appropriate per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute and delete — DaxServer (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore all for easier vandalism protection. I cant be as active as I once was but it's a lot easier for me and people like me to watchlist a few dozen templates, where all edits will be weather-related, than to watchlist a few dozen city articles where hardly any of the edits will be weather- related. Obviously, I missed the first discussion, which ended in deletion, so i expect my argument to fall flat, but it's the position I would have espoused then if I had seen the discussion. —Soap— 16:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that Ive changed the wording from "keep" to "keep and restore". —Soap— 22:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete. I actually take Soap's argument and see it as an even stronger argument for delete. They said they aren't active as they once were. Template:Magadan weatherbox for example has less than 30 watchers. I wouldn't be surprised if the number isn't less than 5. Meanwhile Magadan has 66 watchers. If someone wants to vandalize a page, then a template with no active watchers is going to be how they achieve it much more easier. Gonnym (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, ... thank you. But I am just one person and I dont think my inactivity will make a whole lot of difference considering the size of this project. I specifically said "me and people like me" because I know that many others do what I've been doing. So I'm staying with my original argument, even if I hadn't thought about watch counts. Because honestly, one dedicated watcher on a template may be worth more than ten on the article page.
Bear with me please .... I'm not speaking from a high position here. But I think that 95% of Wikipedia editors, even those who are experts in their field, are unable to tell the difference between a climate data table with an 87F average high temperature and an absolutely identical one that has an 89F high temperature. After all, isnt the climate changing? ....I spoke to someone a few months ago, who is employed in an academic field, and it came up that he didn't realize that Denver, Colorado does not suffer from hurricanes. He isn't dumb ... weather just isn't his field of study.
I believe that people who know weather are much better at spotting when something is being added playfully. And I believe that the editors who watch climate box templates are the very type who can tell the good edits from the bad.
I suspect most climate data vandalism comes from young children who get a thrill of realizing that they've outsmarted a bunch of adults. Honestly, I've had a soft spot for people like that in the past because they, too, know their weather data. But ... there are other places to play. It is important that we do our best to keep our climate boxes accurate.
Lastly, having a separate page for the template ensures that edits to the page will be isolated from other edits in the history and on people's watchlists. On an article page, there may be a thousand edits for every weatherbox edit, and even people paying close attention can miss a few edits. And once the edit has slipped into the history of the page, it's less likely to be noticed. Whereas, even if a false template edit does sneak through, it will be the most recent edit to that template for quite a long time. —Soap— 22:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Magadan, in fact, it so happened the template creator made a small mistake (27.2C instead of 27.8C) which I fixed (and did so by removing the unnecessary year-total values, since the template calculates them automatically). Mistakes happen all the time, and part of our job is to work together to fix them. But I would never have seen that if the climate box had been just a regular edit on the city page, even if I was watching Magadan, since it would have been just one of many edits. —Soap— 22:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Soap and Gonnym: As an admin I can see the actual number of users with pages on their watchlist and had a look at the first 10 templates alphabetically. 7 of 10 had exactly one watcher, one template had two and the last two had three watchers. --Trialpears (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Largely per the anti-vandalism argument above. --Trialpears (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2022 (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:Chemical formula edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 relisted on 2022 January 12. Primefac (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2022 (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:Belgian politics/party colours/Ecolo edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Belgium political party color templates after usages have been converted to use Module:Political party templates. Gonnym (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2022 (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:THSR ridership edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused rail template. Gonnym (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unused. Seems to have been replaced with hardwired numbers, which is simpler with only 12 stations. Nigej (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2022 (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:Malayalam-language Hotstar original films edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 for multiple reasons:

AnomieBOT⚡ 01:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Malayalam-language Hotstar original films with Template:Hotstar original films.
Not enough content. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing to merge. Not sure what the nominator is asking to be merged. Hotstar original films is empty and was created today with the merging nomination tag. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2022 (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:S-line/BJS left/3 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused S-line templates. Gonnym (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2022 (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:File page NFCC concerns tag edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused duplicate of Template:Di-missing article links. User:Toshio Yamaguchi/NFCC enforcement log shows no edits using the template since 2014. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:23, 4 January 2022 (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:Russian politics/party colours edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 13:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most or all of the usages are from Template:Infobox Russian constituency which should be modified similar to Template:Infobox French constituency (after Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 December 12#Template:French politics/party colours) to something like this:

  • {{If empty |{{{member-colour|}}} |{{{member-color|}}} |{{party color|{{{member-party}}}}}}}

This will prevent the need to maintain parties in two different lists which would go out of sync pretty fast. Any direct usage, if any, should be replaced with {{Party color}}. Gonnym (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete, I will update the infobox code. Frietjes (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2022 (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:BE party c edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 11:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political party colors have been centralized at Module:Political party. The above templates can be replaced with the more standard versions:

Any value that is missing should be added to the relevant sub pages of Module:Political party. Gonnym (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2022 (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:Graph:Vetoed UN Resolutions edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 10:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused duplicate of Template:Vetoed UN Resolutions. Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unused duplicate. Nigej (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2022 (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:Formula One constructor timeline (1950–1979) edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 10:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused timeline templates which could be used but isn't used at List of Formula One constructors. Gonnym (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. And the related {{Formula One constructor timeline (1980–present)}}. Probably not used because it's overly complicated. Nigej (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The timelines are confusing and indeed misleading; as I noted at Template talk:Formula One constructor timeline (1980–present)#One row, many constructors, the criteria for placing two or more different names on the same row are unclear. The implication is that two different names in the same row indicates that one constructor was renamed, but this is only true in certain cases - Arrows was renamed Footwork, and Tyrrell was renamed BAR. But the Toleman team was renamed Benetton, and yet they are on different rows. Similarly, Fondmetal is on the same row as EuroBrun, yet it was renamed from Osella. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Inaccurate, misleading, and most of all completely unnecessary, these templates aren't used anywhere and I can't conceive of a practical application for them. 5225C (talk • contributions) 08:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These are unwieldy, misleading and are unlikely to ever be used in any article. A discussion in 2020 shortly after their creation has a clear consensus that these particular templates (there were others in that discussion) are unsuitable for inclusion in any article, and therefore I think they should be deleted (and probably should have been back in 2020). A7V2 (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2022 (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:European colonization of the Americas timeline edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 10:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused timeline template which could but isn't used at European colonization of the Americas. Gonnym (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unused. Seems to be copied from the Italian Wikipedia. Nigej (talk) 10:39, 4 January 2022 (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:Deans of the UF College of Health and Human Performance Timeline edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 10:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused timeline templates. The articles these could be used on are very short and use a table (University of Florida College of Health and Human Performance#Deans of the College of Health and Human Performance, University of Florida College of Liberal Arts and Sciences#Deans of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and University of Florida College of Medicine#Deans of the College of Medicine). Adding these seem to be pretty much redundant for these articles. Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The articles have a list of the deans which is clearly sufficient. Adding the timelines is clearly overly-complicating something thats quite simple. Already out-of-date. Nigej (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2022 (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:Citroën timeline edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 10:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused timeline navbox hybrid template. Template:Citroën timeline 1950–1989 and Template:Citroën timeline 1990 to date are used instead. Gonnym (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unused duplicate of the two noted. A wrapper for {{Citroën timeline/1}} and {{Citroën timeline/2}} which need to be deleted too. Nigej (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment shouldn't the split in the two templates be at 1974/1975 when Peugeot tookover Citroen? And another for when Peugeot tookover FCA so ending the second template at 2020 and a new template for 2021 onwards -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a discussion on how to construct other templates. If you have any issues with the split, bring it up in the relevant talk pages. Gonnym (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2022 (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:Canidae graphical timeline edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 10:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused timeline template. Could be used in Canidae but isn't for whatever reason (I won't be adding it). Gonnym (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2022 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_4&oldid=1065544763"