Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 November 16

< November 15	November 17 >

November 16 edit

Template:TOC Regions of Ukraine 2 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).

The result of the discussion was delete, orphaned a year ago, and clearly no longer needed, and unrelated to the TOC US states template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TOC Regions of Ukraine 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and redundant to a standard horizontal TOC. Frietjes (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, at least tentatively: I notice Frietjes has recently replaced numerous usages of template:TOC US states by use of template:Horizontal TOC, in each case severely damaging the appearance of the articles. (See discussion I opened at User talk:Frietjes.) The "standard horizontal TOC" does not work properly (at all perhaps, making a VERTICAL oriented TOC currently), and it definitely does not have customization for U.S.-specific features, e.g. for editor selection of how non-state but like-a-state capital region Washington, D.C. should be treated. About the template of regions of the Ukraine, Frietjes did you also eliminate multiple usages to make it "unused"? I would like to see verification that the horizontal TOC template achieves exactly what the Regions of Ukraine did. If the change is losing features about any capital region or otherwise, and/or if it is damaging appearance, it is not "redundant", and the Ukraine template should be kept.--doncram 21:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- this has nothing to do with template:TOC US states, and no, I did not orphan template:TOC Regions of Ukraine 2. as far as I can tell, it has never been used. your problems with {{Horizontal TOC}} should be addressed at Template talk:Horizontal TOC or WP:VPT. Frietjes (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - update, it was used briefly here back in 2003, but was subsequently removed by DDima with this edit. Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Doncram, are you still opposing? Frietjes (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. Definitely redundant to the existing Template:Administrative divisions of Ukraine which is much better and really used. However, next time better don't nominate a template for deletion without referring to an existing replacement. PanchoS (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- PanchoS, I didn't refer to Template:Administrative divisions of Ukraine because it's not a TOC template, and hence this template is not redundant to that template. you see, TOC templates generate links sections/anchors within an article, while navigation boxes generate links to other articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, I'm ashamed I got that wrong, sorry. :/ PanchoS (talk) 17:33, 17 November 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).

Template:Ensemble Members of Porchlight Theatre Ensemble (Porchlight Music Theatre) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete and list Paul Goebel under "notable actors". (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ensemble Members of Porchlight Theatre Ensemble (Porchlight Music Theatre) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough active links to provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, and replace with simple "see also" links. Frietjes (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a navigation template created in late 2014 by new editor Danceandsingandact, with apparent intention to link among about a dozen articles. It is sensible to have a navigation template; 12 or so See also links would be awkward and wherever there was a redlink, other editors or a bot would delete them. Navigation templates serve well to indicate a list of intended articles. Deletion of this and an associated template also nominated for deletion would eliminate a large proportion of the new contributor's edits, tending towards discouraging them and driving them away from Wikipedia. Significant cost that way, vs. no benefit in eliminating the templates -> Keep.

Also, I don't mean to be sarcastic or rude, honestly, but don't people have better things to do than to go around hurting new editors? I find myself asking this question and making essentially this comment, repeatedly. There is no policy violation in nominating these templates for deletion, but it is "morally" wrong in my view, and I hope other editors concerned about editor retention will agree. You can choose not to take actions that are likely to turn off new editors, I suggest.

But again, even without considering new editorship as a factor, the template serves a reasonable purpose and should be kept. --do ncr am 21:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does linking to a single article serve a reasonable navigational purpose? And how is it "morally wrong" to nominate a useless template for deletion that should never have been created in the first place? I'm not even sure the "ensemble members" can be backed up by a reliable source. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the "new" editor in question made a couple of dozen edits about a year ago and hasn't edited since. All the edits by this WP:SPA were regarding the Porchlight Music Theatre. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and list Paul Goebel under "notable actors". We don't know if the other actors are notable at all. The list might be incorrect or outdated. We don't know, possibly can't even find out, and certainly don't have the time to do so. So all we can do is delete the list, especially as a semi-orphan template. PanchoS (talk) 23:47, 16 November 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).

Template:Yazdânism 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).

The result of the discussion was relist to Dec 5. Primefac (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yazdânism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The article Yazdanism and even more this template try to conceal the fact that Kurdish scholar Mehrdad Izady's theory of a unique pre-Islamic Kurdish religion which he calls "Yazdanism" isn't much more than a theory, a theory that has been heavily disputed by other recognized experts of the field and that therefore even may be considered a fringe theory. This is supported by the fact that Yazdânism is not even mentioned as a theory in some of the most elevant articles linked from this glitzy template. In the only really visible article of the supposed four branches, the one about Yazidism, the template isn't transcluded at all.
As the theory has been very influential in Kurdish nationalist discourses, it definitely is notable enough to earn its own article. I'm totally fine with that, and not even opposed to the theory. Still, it remains a disputed theory that may not be presented as if it was a widely established fact.
The template might be possibly replaced by more specific templates based on established knowledge and terminology, which might still refer to different (even fringe) theories about possible common origins and close relationships. But this particular template clearly has to go. PanchoS (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I partially rewrote the article Yazdanism for clarity and neutrality. This doesn't change anything about the template though. PanchoS (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the above. Aside from the prominent Yadzanism infobox template, the Yarsanism article never mentions "Yazdanism." The Yazidism article doesn't discuss it either. I suspect many members of these faiths would be surprised to learn that they're "Yazdanis". Now, much like PanchoS, I don't deny that Yazdanism as a concept is out there. Let it have its own page. But to subsume these other religions under the banner of a highly debatable position like Yazdanism is deceptive and not supported by the available sources. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PanchoS (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigercompanion25:@PanchoS: You should probably have a look at {{Religion topics}} which lists those beliefs as part of Yazdanism and edit accordingly. I also wonder if the template should be renamed as {{Religion in Kurdistan}} and completely rebuilt. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:29, 5 December 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).

Template:Chris Amon Racing 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Valid points, and no opposition. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chris Amon Racing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

a) lacks notability: b) not necessary for a team that only produced one car T v x1 22:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; as stated above, there is little, if any, use for this template. Eagleash (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They entered as a privateer team in the 1966 italian gp but dnq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.226.6 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:17, 16 November 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).

Template:VGgenre/sub 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VGgenre/sub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A template that is not used anywhere, and as far as I can see never has been, created by an editor who left Wikipedia over four years ago. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, unused and not needed. Frietjes (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:17, 16 November 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).

Smart conversion templates 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).

The result of the discussion was delete, completely unused. If someone needs them for something important, let me know. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uncomma (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uncommanum (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The so-called "smart conversion templates" are completely unused. Their purpose is to remove commas but this can be done with Module:String instead (and much more efficiently). Delete these redundant unused templates along with Category:Smart conversion templates. Jimp 12:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, unused and not needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recategorized both to Category:String manipulation templates. Unsure about these two.
{{uncomma}} might be useful as a wrapper for {{formatnum:}}, because nobody would expect {{formatnum:}} to be usable for such stuff. The other one, {{uncommanum}} basically does the same as {{formatnum:|R}} and could also be a wrapper, though we might want to rename it to {{unformatnum}}.
In the end, we want to explain users how to use the magic words directly, so we might want to rename them sensibly and replace them with errormessages as this one here. PanchoS (talk) 00:39, 17 November 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).

Template:Cvt 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).

The result of the discussion was relist at Dec 5. Primefac (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cvt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is an unused fork of {{convert}} which would fall under WP:T3 but I'm listing it here because the T3 tag from a year ago was removed. Jimp 11:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment irrelevant to the discussion itself, but I have removed the lvl-4 header these two templates were listed under because they are being treated as separate nominations. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary fork. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect, although calling it a fork isn't really accurate. it's a frontend. Frietjes (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by author. I created {{cvt}} five years ago to simplify the coding of abbreviated conversions in thousands of pages, as making typical conversions twice as short in perhaps 70%-80% of conversions, such as using {{cvt|4|km}} rather than the verbose "{{convert|4|km |abbr=on}}". In reality, {cvt} should be in use more than 2x the number of {convert} template calls, but some people have been systematically removing the use of {cvt} to thwart its use and frustrate the users who want conversions to be less-wordy in pages. Over the past 5 years, {cvt} has been used hundreds of times and should be used in more than one million articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this isn't a fork, it's a wrapper -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To see a typical example of {cvt} inside a list, see page "List of rivers of Taiwan" (permalink) with 61 instances of {cvt} to show "km" for "kilometers" rather than 61 of "{convert|...|abbr=on}". Some users really dislike wordy syntax in parameters, and that is why {cvt} was created in 2010 as a short-form template, especially for use in lists or tables. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:29, 16 November 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).

Template:Convert/E 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. {{Convert}} can handle exponents, and the example given is (a) wrong (it should be 1.7e20) and (b) Convert doesn't recognize UStsb as a unit (i.e. it has nothing to do with the exponent). As stated, these units should be added to Convert instead of a justification for keeping a legacy template. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Convert/E (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This was created before {{convert}} could handle E-notation as input (without outputting E-notation). {{Convert}} has since been updated so that this is no long a problem thus making {{convert/E}} redundant. It's also unused (except in about half a dozen places like archives and test pages). It probably falls under WP:T3 but I'm listing it here just in case. Jimp 10:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary fork. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect, unused and not needed. Frietjes (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by author. The Template:Convert/E is a wp:wrapper template (not a fork) used with Template:Convert/old, formerly with Template:Convert, to handle units not supported by the Lua {Convert}. For example: {{Convert/E|9E17|USqt|UStsp}} shows "9 × 10¹⁷ US quarts (4.2 × 10⁹ US teaspoons)" while Lua {Convert} could not yet handle that conversion: 9×10¹⁷ US quarts (^{[convert: unknown unit]}). -Wikid77 (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If these units are worth having they can be added to {{convert}}. Jimp 01:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep used with OLDconvert, so should be kept. I suggest that @Wikid77: copy over {{convert/old}} to Wikia Templates [1]. Indeed, all the old ParserFunction general utility templates should be undeleted and transferred before being hidden again on Wikipedia. It's a great loss to the MediaWiki user community that Wikipedia has deleted all the old templates, since they can be used without LUA. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "used with"? {{Convert/old}} doesn't use {{convert/E}} and {{convert/E}} wasn't using {{convert/old}} until yesterday. What's more, {{convert/old}} isn't even in use anyway. Why are we keeping this stuff? Jimp 11:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we deleting this stuff so soon, when there are still problems with the Lua script version of Template:Convert? Meanwhile, using Template:Convert/old supports unit-codes not provided by the Lua version and helps spot errors, such as Lua "{{convert|1|m2|cm2 in2}}" giving "1 square metre (10,000 cm²; 1,600 in²)" while {convert/old} shows the correct "

This userpage has been blanked. If this is your userpage, you can retrieve the contents of this page in the page history. Alternatively, if you would like it deleted, simply replace the content of this page with {{db-u1}}.

". Years ago, we decided the square-inch symbol would show "sq in" and never "in²" as in the Lua version during 2015. {Convert/old} still works correctly, and quickly provides unit-codes not supported by the Lua version, although people have been removing many instances of {convert/old} to pretend it is not needed. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion isn't about deleting {{convert/old}}, it's about {{convert/E}}. Jimp 02:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 06:17, 16 November 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).

Template:Eigenfactor website 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by Versageek (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eigenfactor website (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, broken external link template. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:29, 16 November 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).

Template:Infobox county youth biography 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).

The result of the discussion was Template does not exist. If the template linked contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox county youth biography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Broken template presumably intended to be used on Draft:Sam Jeffries(footballer). The user seems to have figured out the correct template to use on that draft, so I don't think this is needed anymore. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:28, 16 November 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).

Template:Infobox Musikalbum 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Musikalbum (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, broken template that simply consists of a call to itself. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:26, 16 November 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).

Template:Imagen múltiple 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).

The result of the discussion was delete, unused editing test. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Imagen múltiple (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Largely unused, broken template that is stuck in a template loop with itself. Presumably our local Template:Multiple image does the job well enough; we don't need a non-English titled version as well. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying User:Calliopejen1, who has a user subpage that uses this broken template. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete or redirect to {{multiple image}}. Frietjes (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete Seems to be a test template. PanchoS (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete hardcoded instance of non-English template. General use templates on English Wikipedia should be in English. Boilerplate should not be made into a template, this should have been in-page coding, if it were in English. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:10, 18 November 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).

Template:Infobox All-Africa Games event 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G2 by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox All-Africa Games event (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, broken template that is stuck in a loop with itself. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:23, 16 November 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).