Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 7

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 6 January 8 >

January 7 edit

Template:Winners of the Lili Fabilli and Eric Hoffer Laconic Essay Prize 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. BethNaught (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only two links, not sure if the prize is notable, there is no article for it Aloneinthewild (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless an article is made for it per WP:NAVBOX #4 and it can benefit multiple articles. —PC-XT+ 01:14, 17 January 2016 (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:Chinglish 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) Primefac (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused specific implementation of Template:Rough translation for Chinese using a needlessly pejorative name. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If anyone has used this, it would be most likely to be User:Makecat, but that user doesn't seem to have used it often if at all. I don't think we need a shortcut template for hardcoding two parameters unless it's used a lot more often. --ais523 22:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Subst: and delete as single-use template. —PC-XT+ 09:44, 20 January 2016 (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:Embry-Riddle - Prescott 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) Primefac (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No merit having navboxes for such small institutions. All links are red accept the affiliation. Can be covered by {{Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University}} instead if needed Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The nomination isn't entirely correct; although one template has just the one bluelink, the other has three (well, two and a redirect, but it goes to a page distinct form those two). On the other hand, it's hard to see how these templates could end up with a noticeable number of bluelinks that aren't just covered by the umbrella template. Navboxes are for navigation, not for presenting information, and so are only useful if they're transcluded on all the pages they link. These aren't transcluded on any of the pages they link. --ais523 22:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant/unused (Transclusion checks: Prescott Daytona) —PC-XT+ 10:00, 20 January 2016 (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 Quebec political party 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 Jan 27. Primefac (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Quebec political party and Template:Infobox Canadian political party with Template:Infobox political party.
These two infoboxes differ only minimally from the generic political party infobox and are therefore redundant rather than a really helpful simplification. PanchoS (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete This isn't as bad as some I've seen. There are several hardcoded parameters in the wrapper, so this looks a lot like a template whose purpose is to track the parameters in question. The main things to consider here are: a) are the parameters in question likely to change in a way that means that it's useful to be able to easily change them across articles, and b) are there likely to be enough new instances of the templates that it's convenient to have the parameters in place already? Both of these events seem possible, but reasonably unlikely; in this case, the wrapper probably costs more (in maintenance of wrapper templates) than it gains (in the ability to mass-update articles). But I'm not sure. --ais523 22:12, 8 January 2016 (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:Trains portal/DYK date 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 Jan 27. Primefac (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Robert F. Kennedy currently contains a notice that "A fact from this article was used in the "Did you know" section of Portal:Trains on November 4, 2009.". For most (if not all) editors interested in discussing the RFK article that notice is nothing more than a piece of clutter that has to be scrolled past to get to the discussions. This template appears to have been superseded by the use of a parameter on the WikiProject template - e.g. {{WikiProject Trains|...|portaldykdate=January 7, 2016}} (which doesn't add to the visible clutter on the talk page). Note: If this TFD results in the deletion of the template then it could be followed by a TFD covering other similar templates (e.g. Template:OhioSAN, Template:VP Showcase, Template:MedportalSAC). DexDor (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This template is useful. It is useful to editors to note that the content of an article is of interest to other editors who may not have made substantial studies on the article's topic. It is useful to me as the lead editor of the Trains portal to know at a glance if a fact from the article has appeared in the portal's DYK section (I try not to use an article in this section more than once). The alternative for me would be to scan the article's links list, which is a more lengthy procedure and an article's past use on the portal is more likely to be missed. With almost 11 years of edit history on the portal, scanning those archives every day would be prohibitively time consuming. This template is only used on articles where the main topic is not within the scope of WikiProject Trains (and the article's talk page would therefore not have the project banner), as can also be seen on Talk:Pocket watch, Talk:1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, Talk:LGM-30 Minuteman and Talk:Joan Sims to name a few more. When I created this template, I tried to keep it as simple and small as possible to say just the most important fact (the date that the article appeared in the portal's DYK section, the text of the DYK fact is archived elsewhere). I added the |portaldykdate= parameter to the project banner because the majority of articles featured on the portal are within the project's scope, and having two banners that linked to the portal was overkill. The parameter in the project banner does not supersede this template; this template is for articles where the WikiProject Trains banner is not appropriate. As to adding banner clutter, there is probably a better solution, such as perhaps incorporating it into the BannerShell template, that is more suitable to a different discussion. Slambo (Speak) 20:25, 7 January 2016 (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:Citation broken 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 {{Full citation needed}}. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. This is completely redundant with {{Full citation needed}}, which specifies what the problem is – lack of complete citation information – and by implication how to fix it, instead of just vaguely complaining, in hyperbolic wording, that there's an unspecified problem of "breakage". In cases where the citation is "broken" because it contains incorrect information or the source does not support the claim for which it is cited, we already have other templates for those issues, too. If the citation template formatting is wrong, the template itself will red-flag this. Ergo, no need for a template this vague, even if it might have been seen as useful back in 2007 before we had the more specific templates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as this covers multiple cases, I don't see why it would redirect to your suggested template. Rather, this seems like a general this citation needs cleanup template. If this is so, then cleanup patrollers should just replace it with the more appropriate template, or do the cleanup, instead of needing all our editors to know every single cleanup message. There should be a basic citation cleanup message (requiring specification as to what is broken) that casual editors can use. - 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per SMC, redirect at a minimum, delete and redirect at the max. --Izno (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2016 (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-Khaleej Club (Saudi) squad 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. Move discussion can take place on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Far too many redlinks (i.e. not enough bluelinks), which means that it does mot serve as a useful navigation tool. If it is kept then it should be moved to {{Khaleej FC squad}} in line with the parent article. GiantSnowman 16:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Six articles (seven including the club), and it's likely that many of the red links meet the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) guideline. Peter James (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But until such time that there are sufficient bluelinks it doesn't serve its purpose as a navigation aid. GiantSnowman 12:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move: Name of the template should match that of the main article but the players here are notable and if they don't have a page, we should make them... I will try to create a few to get the template looking good. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7 links passes the soft minimum at WP:NENAN. Keep for today. --Izno (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, while editors are trying to improve it. —PC-XT+ 11:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC) I also support the move. —PC-XT+ 12:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & move: I agree with PC-XT and ArsenalFan700's assessment. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2016 (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:Rivers of Northern Province, Sri Lanka 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) Primefac (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete. Replaced by {{Inland waters of Sri Lanka}} Rehman 14:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete works for me here per the nom. --Izno (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2016 (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:Justice Party (United States) 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. Seems like a case of TOOSOON. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a little used template for small party that only ran candidate in one election. TM 15:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: The party is currently working to build state level parties. It is not running a national candidate for POTUS as it has endorsed Bernie Sanders.

Do not delete: This party is still actively registered with the United States Federal Election Commission--based on a search in the FEC Committee/Candidate Search --and so this template may provide value to WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums. --Morris7200 (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note this template is used on exactly one article.--TM 12:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I only find one, as well. This isn't a working navbox. The party's notability, registration, size, or number of candidates doesn't matter to this template if it doesn't actually navigate. I'm leaning towards delete for now as premature unless it can benefit more articles. —PC-XT+ 00:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per PC-XT's asessment, this doesn't aid navigation Aloneinthewild (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Hardly usable for navigation with that few links and easily replacable with in-text links, or a list section at Justice Party (United States). - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2016 (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:WikiProjectBanners 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 Jan 27. Primefac (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:WikiProjectBanners with Template:WikiProjectBannerShell.
It would be nice to merge these two templates so that we have a single banner shell template with all the same options. Currently {{WikiProjectBanners}} is a wrapper for {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} with the parameter |collapsed= set to "yes". So if we could replace all instances of {{WikiProjectBanners}} with {{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes}} then we could just redirect or delete {{WikiProjectBanners}} — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's a wrapper, so it's already been merged. Though you could convert Banners to be a subst-only version... -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal is basically substitute the first template and either redirect it or make it subst-only. They both appear to be appropriate actions, though editors may prefer the subst-only version, if they are used to it. The second template doesn't need to be touched. —PC-XT+ 01:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That is correct. I wasn't going to bother making a subst'able template because there is nothing about the name WikiProjectBanners which implies its collapsing function. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 19 January 2016 (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:Country study 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. Issue seems to have been fixed. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want this deleted, but the url it generates, which used to show an index for a particular country, now seems to redirect to the main country index. I was wondering if this url can be improved to, say, "http://www.loc.gov/collections/country-studies/?fa=location%3A" followed by the country name. I wanted to get others' opinions before making such an edit. The template's talkpage is empty with fewer than 30 watchers, the author is on wikibreak, and the template has a previous merge discussion here, so here I ask. Thanks. —PC-XT+ 08:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @PC-XT: I am not sure what the template was originally supposed to link to. If it was the creator's goal to present an online version of these studies, then I think the following URL pattern is needed: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gdc/cntrystd.xx with xx being the country code in question (e.g. ir for Iran, ru for Russia etc.). As far as I cant tell from the template code, http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/{{{abbr}}}toc.html should become http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gdc/cntrystd.{{{abbr}}} - HyperGaruda (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems better than my suggestion. Thank you! —PC-XT+ 00:36, 25 January 2016 (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/2016_January_7&oldid=1036692108"