Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 14

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 13 September 15 >

September 14 edit

Template:Korea Super Prix years 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) 06:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with one extant article, plus one at AFD, not now useful. QueenCake (talk) 21:33, 14 September 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:Imagequote 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 redirect to {{Quote/to right of image}}. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A grotesque table-based hack to do what {{Quote/to right of image}} does far more elegantly. It can just redirect to that subtemplate, which itself will go away and just redirect to {{Quote}}, when one of two alternative approaches to this fix is integrated into Mediawiki:Common.css (under discussion here; there's a proportional, flexible approach, and a fixed-size approach that doesn't scale; consensus has already been reached to fix it, but not yet about which fix to apply). In the interim, {{Quote/to right of image}}, documented at Template:Quote/doc#Limitations, does carefully what {{Imagequote}} is stabbing at.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • replace/delete. I suspect a number of these don't need either solution, so they should be replaced by hand (possible given the low number of transclusions). Frietjes (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's harmless if they use it. {{Quote/to right of image}} is just a hardcoding of the flexible approach mentioned above (i.e., it's liable to be the eventual code of {{Quote}}, other than the CSS difference between these two templates now will be in Mediawiki:Common.css as how all <blockquote>s are treated, doing their indentation with padding instead of margin (margin fails next to the floated stuff).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand correctly that {quote} is going to be taught to play well with images (and, I assume, other boxes) to the left, I'm all for that. EEng (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{Quote/to right of image}} (and thus eventually to {{quote}}, if/when they're merged). This template looks pretty different from a "real" quote (in fact, it looks worse than a plain <blockquote> on at least Firefox), and there are already quoting templates that handle the same situation correctly and in a more consistently styled way. --ais523 07:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
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:Ankit Fadia 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, current content can be covered by see also sections and article links. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why you think the template should be deleted. it only has two links 203.109.161.2 (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This one is problematic in that it is not completely clear if the IP user or someone else nominated this template. A quick read of the Ankit Fadia article suggests that the subject meets WP:notability requirements, although I did not dig into the sources to confirm they were appropriate sources. The fact that most of the author's works do not (yet) have their own articles is not surprising given the fact that the article is about an author who is from a country where English, while spoken by many, is not the primary language. I think having just two links in the template might be preferable to having a template full of red links. I would be interested in hearing from those who worked on this author's page, especially the template creator, what their intent is regarding articles about the author's other works.Etamni | ✉ | ✓  22:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NENAN it has only 3 links, per other navbox deletions at TfD, that's rather low. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: You might want to consider whether unlisted items are likely to be notable to decide on whether WP:NENAN and WP:RED should apply.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • replace with "see also" links and delete. Frietjes (talk) 21:07, 14 September 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).

Service award 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. Pinging JohnCD to do the honours. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 06:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recently AlexTheWhovian embarked on a large-scale expansion of the Incremental Service Awards scheme, developing Wikipedia:Incremental service awards (Ribbons) to this version which includes an additional 42 levels of award. He devoted a great deal of care and ingenuity to devising templates for ribbons corresponding to the different levels of award, but unfortunately he did not first consult to see whether there was consensus that such an expansion would be useful. Discussion here was against the idea, and an MfD was started at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Incremental service awards (Ribbons). As part of the close of that, I rolled back Wikipedia:Incremental service awards (Ribbons) to the version before Alex's expansion.

That leaves 42 unnecessary templates. Only three of them are in use, transcluded by one user each, who I will notify of this discussion. I recommend that we delete all, together with their accompanying /doc pages. I will volunteer, if this TfD is closed as delete, to carry out the actual deletions. JohnCD (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all, per the MfD. And it would be nice to give the three users the kept award that corresponds the subaward they were using; this stuff got complicated unnecessarily, and it might be difficult for them to figure out what they're supposed to have now. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good thought. I have told each of them which ribbon they are still entitled to display. JohnCD (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, per the MfD. Thanks for volunteering, JohnCD. Mootros (talk) 10:19, 15 September 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:Metatalk 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 no consensus to delete, some support for rewording the template to be clearer about its purpose. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to similar talk-page header templates. Only 31 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment which talk page headers is it redundant to? The documentation explains which circumstances this template should be used, and why it shouldn't be used widely -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because this template solves a problem and doesn't violate policy. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  10:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge with Template:Off topic warning. They serve similar purposes, although there're some differences. Ctwabn (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 04:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Among others, this template is redundant to {{Notaforum}}, which has over 5,100 translusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note The number of translusions of another template has no bearing on whether this one is redundant to it, or not. Transclusion count is relevant for determining which template should be the canonical one after they are decided to be redundant. We're not at that point yet. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to {{not a forum}}. Current transclusions should be replaced with {{not a forum}} and then this template should be deleted. --TL22 (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This isn't redundant to {{not a forum}} (which becomes clear when you try to work out what the {{{1}}} parameter of that template should be; comments misplaced on Talk:Main Page are not about a consistent subject!). That template is for talk pages that are being used as a WP:RD substitute. This template, meanwhile, is being used for talk pages about talk pages or project pages, which are being used as a substitute for talk pages about articles, and the important bullet point there is the second: "To comment on an article, go back to that article's talk page.". That advice makes no sense for most uses of {{not a forum}} or {{off topic warning}} (which, the way they are worded, only really work on article talk pages and maybe (at a stretch) noticeboard talk pages). As a result, this templates can't be sensibly merged with an existing one, and thus is needed as a separate template. --ais523 07:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per ais523. {{not a forum}} is for article talk pages, but {{metatalk}} is for projectspace talk pages. BethNaught (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boldface words: I don't see how {{metatalk}} and {{notaforum}} are interchangeable.
    • {{notaforum}} = "This is the talk page for the XYZ article. Don't talk about XYZ here; talk about the XYZ article."
    • {{metatalk}} = "This is a talk page for a special project page. You're probabbly lost. Here's a way out."
Now, if that distinction isn't clear, perhaps the thing to do is improve one or both templates so they do their job better, thus making the difference clearer. Suggestions on how the template(s) might be improved would be welcome. Ideas? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 19:56, 14 October 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:Notcontact 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 no consensus. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only 12 transclusions, so no community uptake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment wouldn't this only be used after repeated attempts to contact the person in question, thus not be widely used? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Rationale for deletion is extremely weak, much like the rest of the noms on this page and the last by this user. 'Lack of Community Uptake' is not a reason for deletion. ♥ Melody Concerto ♥ 02:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no grounds for a speedy keep; please read WP:SPEEDYKEEP. And yes, lack of significant use is very much a reason for deletion. I note that you make no case that the template is needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after removing from articles. This doesn't warrant substitution. It's an entirely unnecessary template. ~ RobTalk 00:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 10:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not per nom. Instead, it should be deleted as redundant to {{not a forum}}. Current transclusions of this template should be replaced with {{not a forum}}, and then this template should be deleted. --TL22 (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this really a problem? Unless someone can provide evidence that morons frequently try to talk to celebs through their WP talk pages, I'm for deleting this as talk page template cruft. It is not redundant to {{not a forum}} as it addresses an issue the other doesn't. Do not replace with not a forum. BethNaught (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not redundant to {{not a forum}}, at least; that template is informing newcomers about WP:NOT#FORUM, which doesn't really say anything about the sort of behaviour listed here. As for how much of a problem it is, we already have a speedy deletion criterion for it (it's part of WP:CSD#A3), and apparently it's enough of a problem that there's been talk about extending it to other namespaces. Presumably it happens less on talk pages than on article pages, but there's evidence that it's enough of a problem that it's worth a templated warning. --ais523 07:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
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:Citation by contributor 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 keep. North America1000 13:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A mere 11 transclusions indicates a lack of community uptake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, and also because this is pretty much redundant to {{COI}} and related. ~ RobTalk 06:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @J Milburn, Hroðulf, Crisco 1492, and Imzadi1979: You've used this template - any thoughts? Alakzi (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This isn't redundant to the COI template at all- having written about something does not entail a close connection to it. The template may or may not serve a genuine need, and it may or may not be as widely used as it could be, but it's not redundant. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I find it useful. As Josh says, "having written about something does not entail a close connection to it", and the wording in this template is much more accurate to the situation than in the standard COI template. A lack of uptake doesn't mean the template has no purpose or is redundant; it might not be advertised much, or (in this situation) people might not want to divulge their RL identities. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: serves a distinct purpose from {{COI}}. BethNaught (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—as noted above, it is used for a distinct purpose from the other template. Imzadi 1979 → 01:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 10:27, 14 September 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:A2 honeycombs 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 keep. Alakzi (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of a dimensional series, like Template:A3_honeycombs Template:A4_honeycombs Template:A5_honeycombs... Tom Ruen (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since it uses Coxeter notation, I linked it there as an example of the Extended symmetry section. Tom Ruen (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft delete. I haven't evaluated whether this could ever be useful, but right now it isn't. I wouldn't object if a future editor wishes this to be restored for use in an article, but for now we just have a two year old template with zero transclusions. It's adding nothing to the wiki at the moment, and I have no reason to believe it will in the near future. ~ RobTalk 05:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll withdraw this nomination since it's now being used. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:44, 14 September 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:Albania in the Eurovision Young Dancers 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) 06:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template with just a single red link. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:16, 14 September 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:Al Ahly Basketball 2011-12 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 as unopposed. ~ RobTalk 14:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned unused template. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:15, 14 September 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:Article Rescue Squadron New article 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) 07:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template created without consensus for use in Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list, consensus for the change in that page is not set yet, and the creator has edit warred with this template on the page I linked. TL22 (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This template could only be used on the project page, where there is no consensus for its use. The creator has cited WP:BOLD to support his introduction of this template, but that doesn't apply when consensus is against you. ~ RobTalk 02:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CLOSE DELETION DISCUSSION Please see:
Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Headtransplant_reported_by_User:ToonLucas22_.28Result:_.29
ToonLucas reported me for 3RR, when I argued the 3RR, he stalked my edits, then put this template up for deletion.
Headtransplant (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No actual rationale is presented to speedy keep this template. The fact that you may have broken other policies does not suggest your new template should be exempt from policy and consensus. ~ RobTalk 03:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Generally speaking, linking to a thread which amply demonstrates a refusal to comply with policy (i.e. WP:3RR) isn't likely to be seen as a particularly convincing reason to keep a template that has been used for edit warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no consensus for use. Frietjes (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's unclear where this is meant to be used (and consensus at the Article Rescue Squadron appears to be not to use it at all, and it's unlikely that anyone else would). For some of the reasonable possibilities (e.g. in the Article Rescue Squadron's own pages), it should probably be transcluded from Wikipedia: space anyway, or perhaps substituted if it's not meant to be used on multiple pages. As it is, I don't see a compelling reason to keep it around; I could understand creating a template for use in a new process before gaining consensus to use it (so that people can see what the new process would look like), but a consensus to use it seems unlikely to build. --ais523 07:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
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:Carmelita Jeter 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) 09:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This amounts to a series of links to championships the athlete has competed in and the athlete's coach and brother. Carmelita Jeter is not a sufficient person to warrant her own navigation across these pages SFB 18:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 02:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This isn't a navbox; it's an infobox. Alakzi (talk) 10:20, 14 September 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:Patronymic name 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 replace and delete {{habesha name}}, and review existing use of {{patronymic name}} to ensure accurate display, if this hasn't yet been done. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Patronymic name with Template:Habesha name.
The purpose of the Habesha name template is identical and this is essentially a reduced spin-off of that older template. It makes more sense to have the neutral "Patronymic" template name so this template can be used on non-Habesha culture articles. Defining the cultural background of the name is a secondary concern – the purpose of the hatnote template is to instruct readers on how to read the name, not give a cultural description of the subject. SFB 01:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge (or Redirect) from {{Habesha name}} to {{Patronymic name}} (which I believe is the same outcome that the nominator meant), for the same reason that the nom gave. There is a little more background at Template talk:Patronymic name. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Habesha" is offensive to some people and Patronymic is a larger set. In other words all Habesha names are also Patronymic names but not vice versa. However Habesha is more specific for people who really are ethnically Abesha. Being more specific is usually a good thing. So on one hand I think having both terms can be more descriptive and more accurate. On the other hand the word "Patronymic" is less emotionally charged which is desirable. It seems to me you could have one template that has an ability to let you include the term "Habesha name" or not (true/false parameter) with it defaulting to "Patronymic" as this is the more general term (or defaulting to "Habesha" as this template has been used much more in the past) --Gr5555 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just noticed that sillyfolkboy changed the patronymic template also. I just now fixed the documentation to match those changes. He moved the "his/her" field to the 3rd parameter which is nice because now it matches the habesha template and because you can leave that term out if you don't know the gender of the person you are writing about (seems unlikley) but is bad because they were in that order for a reason - the 4th parameter could be the grandfather name - sometimes in patronymic names they go back 2 generations instead of just one and putting "his" between 2nd and 3rd name is now a bit awkward. Although the template doesn't support the grandfather name yet (requires conditionals which I didn't read up on). I think what happened is gyrofrog probably replaced the habesha template with the patronymic template without changing the order of the parameters and then sillyfolkboy "fixed" the template and then fixed the usage on Mare Dibaba which would have then been in the wrong order. Anyway I'd love to hear your thoughts about what order the parameters should appear in the template. --Gr5555 (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC
@Gr5555: Please note that I have amended the few uses of the Patronymic template to match the established Habesha template field arrangement. I think it's good for ease of use that the two key elements (the subject's name and their father's name) are the first two fields. I don't see stating "him/her" as any better than the neutral "their" that is automatically shown. I'm happy to help with looking into how best to deal with the grandfather name issue. SFB 17:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(update) I've just added a feature to autopopulate the names (if page title takes form of FIRSTNAME FATHER NAME). This should be merged into the final result if approved. SFB 18:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: The problem with this suggestion is that the pre-existing uses of the Habesha template do not work for the field arrangement in the newly created Patronymic template. SFB 17:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can either fix them in situ, or do a soft redirect that also passes the values in the correct order to {{Patronymic name}}. Yes, they do. They're in precisely the same order; the only difference was that {{Habesha name}} added a {{{4}}} that allows people to change "father" to something else, which isn't a sensible approach (it would allow changing of "father" to "mother" without changing "patronymic" to "matronymic", and lending itself to vandalism input like "dog". I've added a more robust feature for this at {{Patronymic name}}. So, {{Habesha name}} can now simply be replaced with {{Patronymic name}} and the results will actually be better. {{Habesha name}} is now 100% redundant. PS: This feature at {{Patronymic name}} can easily be extended with #switch to work with other specific values like "grandfather", "grandmother", etc., if there's an actual need for it (not going to do the work to implement that unless we have an article already that will use it).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: The current field orders work together because I aligned them – I took your comment to "revert changes to Patronymic name" as meaning to unalign them again (?). SFB 13:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebooted suggestion: For us to dwell on "was there consensus to do that and should a status quo ante revert be done" might be unproductive at this point. Here's what I presently think makes most sense:
    1. {{Habesha name}} has effectively already merged with {{Patronymic name}}, which handles the parameters more usefully (whatever order they're in). The former should be replaced with the latter and deleted, because people above note that the term is sometimes considered offensive, plus we just don't need a redundant template.
    2. The parameter order should be the same as that used by the other templates in the series, to the extent they coincide, so people get the results they expect. To the extent they don't, the present one seems reasonable.
    3. But if uses of the template are now producing the wrong output, revert the order to what it was, immediately, or fix all those template calls to use the current order, immediately (i.e., without waiting on this TfD to close). The #1 most important thing is that the output in the articles be correct.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support the above. I already carried out the fixes a while ago so that is already done. This is exactly the same as my original proposition, bar the claim Patronymic handles the parameters more usefully – for the majority of articles, the Habesha template can dispose of parameters completely, which is surely preferable code-wise. SFB 23:30, 30 September 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).

inappropriate ship prefix 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. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tugboat and Barge, the words, are ship types akin to battleship, destroyer, etc., not ship prefixes (USS, HMS, MV, etc). {{Barge}} was unused. {{Tugboat}} was used in three articles; all instances of that template in article space have been replaced. The templates have one watcher (me); the creator, Editor Haus has retired. The cognizant project notification is here. Trappist the monk (talk) 00:36, 14 September 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_14&oldid=1145347472"