Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 July 8

July 8Edit

Excess Gospel of John–related templatesEdit

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 {{Chapters in the Gospel of John}} and merge {{Content of John}}. The latter template will need to be retained due to the attribution requirements of a merge. It can be redirected to the article and tagged with {{R with history}} ~ Rob13Talk 23:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

These templates are redundant, their content being already contained in the better designed Template:Gospel of John. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 09:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... despite being the nominator, my opinion on this isn't too strong. But wouldn't "Content of John" be better as simply article content, rather than an awkward template off to the side? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 10:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Note I've copied Template:Content of John to User:Jujutsuan/Content of John COPY for this purpose in case the template is ultimately deleted. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 10:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
On what planet is Template:Gospel of John confusing? And isn't policy to pick between a navbox and a sidebar, not to have both? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 22:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Template:Gospel of John is the only one of the four gospels that currently has this type of treatment page. There used to be pages for the other four, but it looks like they were all either deleted or had their content moved back to the parent pages. I created them at the request of another editor, whose name I forget, due to Talk discussions on one of the gospel pages because he and other authors felt that this type of book list was too much for the main Gospel of John page. I've always felt that this info should be on the main page anyway. Ckruschke (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke
  • Merge {{Content of John}} with the article per author, above. Also, there is some precedent to removing sidebars if there is a redundant navbox, though I think sidebars can be useful in some cases. —PC-XT+ 23:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • delete {{Chapters in the Gospel of John}}. checking John 2, I see that the sidebar is entirely redundant to three other methods for navigating the articles (1) Template:Gospel of John, (2) the sequence links in {{Bible chapter}}, and (3) the {{sequence}} at the foot of the article. And, then merge Template:Content of John with the article. we don't need single use templates. Frietjes (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that votes to merge {{Content of John}} with the article Gospel of John should be interpreted as votes to delete; as I mentioned above, I've userfied a copy of the template for merging purposes, and will complete the merge promptly after the original is deleted. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 19:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete the sidebar as redundant per Frietjes after further review (my above !vote was only for the single-use template) —PC-XT+ 22:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Could you clarify which one you mean? They're both technically sidebars. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 22:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the ambiguity. I mean that we should delete both after merging the content one with the article —PC-XT+ 01:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this could be SNOW-closed at this point. The article's GA review is waiting on the results of this discussion, but the outcome seems pretty clearly in favor of the nomination; delete both, merge "Content" with the article from the userfied copy. No sense keeping the review waiting. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 20:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jujutsuan: It's not really much of a snow close when this nomination's seven days ends at 2 AM tomorrow morning. Pppery (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Looks like I mis-remembered WP:SNOW; I was thinking more along the lines of its converse. Anyway, my point was that the result is pretty clear, and I don't see the point in waiting until it's "officially" over. Not really a big deal either way. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 20:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, now can we close it down? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment To make this easier for the closer, here's my tally of the votes so far. Feel free to check it for yourself.
  • Keep: 2
  • Delete / merge into article: 4
  • Keep: 1
  • Delete: 5
Note that these counts do not include the redundant first !vote from @PC-XT, since he clarified his position in a second vote. They do include my own positions as nominator. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 20:47, 18 July 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).

Chemical elements named after ...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. Those arguing for deletion argued that these navboxes grouped articles by a non-defining characteristic, whereas those arguing for keeping argued WP:NOTDEF only applies to categories and readers may want to navigate between these articles. Both categories and navigation boxes serve the same purpose (to "group articles" as per WP:CLT). Categories are a much less invasive way of linking to articles, as navboxes take up valuable real estate on the article page itself, so it stands to reason that navboxes should be about a more strongly associated group than a category. This is more-or-less written into our guidelines at WP:NAVBOX, where criteria 3 and 5 appear highly relevant. Those criteria grant significant weight to the arguments for deletion; they're the navbox equivalent of NOTDEF. Based on strength of arguments, there's consensus to delete. ~ Rob13Talk 15:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete. The templates do not address a navigable topic. As with similar categorisation, the property listed in each is not defining. (For that reason there also is no navbox "Element names starting with an A"). Any such etymology is well covered in List of elements. DePiep (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per same argument as DePiep (nominator?). Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 17:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose A scientist may play a crucial role in the discovery of a certain element. Scientific community honors such scientists by naming elements after them. I wanted to stress this role in the cat. The example "element names starting with an A" is not analogous to this role. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:NOTDEFINING and redundant to the list noted by nom. This is a trivial intersection, and as many of these places or people aren't related to one another other than by the elemental connection displayed in the list article. MSJapan (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. (And in response to Nedim Ardoğa: usually, elements are not named after the scientists that helped to discover them: seaborgium is currently the only exception, although element 118 will soon be the second when it is renamed oganesson. Some of these scientists were not even chemists, such as Röntgen and Copernicus.) Double sharp (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • The title of the template is not "... after chemists". Thus Röntgen and Copernicus deserve to be in the template. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • comment WP:NOTDEFINING is for categorization. Christian75 (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The concept of non-defining property' is what it is about. That is applicable here too. -DePiep (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Per the preceding comment, this is not a discussion about a category, it is a discussion about a navbox. Personally, I can see me navigating between Americium and Copper (Copper was named after a place? Cool! Which one?). As for Double sharp's comment: I can sorta agree that adding links to the individuals the elements were named after is unnecessary, but the navbox itself seems useful for navigating between elements named after people. Dunno, I'm kinda on the fence about that one. The List of chemical elements is nice, but if I'm looking for elements named after places, I'm not going to trawl through the entire list to get 'em all. Primefac (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
re Primefac "this is not a discussion about a category" - but it is about non-defining properties. Both WP:CATDEF and WP:NOTDEFINING are invoked for the principle described: being named after someone/some place is not defining. In this, that is equally valid. After all, a navbox is a grouping too. Then, "I'm looking for elements named after places ..." (how would you arrive at the navbox in the first place? That's pretty much asking for a category -- which it should not be). The point with non-defining properties is that it is not a search entrance. We're not a quiz machine. (Sure one could search for an element that melts near room temperature. But that does not mean we should create a navbox by melting temperatures). -DePiep (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
No its not about non-defining properties (ie. categories). Its about navigation templates. Christian75 (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The ground for grouping each of these two navigations is a not defining property. Described differently and equally to the point, see WP:NAVBOX for points 1–5. Quite tellingly, there is no article Naming of a chemical element to a scientist. -DePiep (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
You have not replied to one single argument brought in against Primefacs &tc. posts. -DePiep (talk) 00:37, 15 July 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:New Jersey school district spending tableEdit

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 both and do not merge. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:New Jersey school district spending table with Template:Infobox school district.
I found this as an ill formed proposal. Because it makes sense, at first glance at least, I fixed it. The proposal was explained at Template_talk:New_Jersey_school_district_spending_table. Debresser (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • do not merge, these are entirely different templates. to see, just check any of the transclusions of the NJ template. you will see that the spending table template is a module, while the district infobox is a stand-alone infobox. Frietjes (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't try to merge the different functions of these templates per Frietjes —PC-XT+ 03:14, 10 July 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:Dates for EasterEdit

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 merge the "backend" as described by Crissov if possible by converting the table to use a module. This will not be listed at WP:TFD/H since this isn't really a "normal" outcome for a TfD and such editing is highly specialized; I leave it to participants to do it if they're interested or recruit a capable module editor. There's clear consensus for a merge of the backend, but no obvious consensus for an overall merge. No prejudice against bringing this back to TfD after the backend merge is completed. ~ Rob13Talk 00:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Dates for Easter with Template:Table of dates of Easter.
I found this as an ill formed proposal. Because it makes sense, at first glance at least, I fixed it. In addition, the second template includes more information, so this could be turned into a redirect. Both templates are in use on 2-3 articles in all. Debresser (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Aside from the trivial difference in dates, there's a scope of information problem and a titling problem. Whether or not one wants to generalize over the origin of holidays, merging the full moon date, Passover, "Astronomical Easter" (whatever that's useful for), "Gregorian Easter" (which isn't standard anyway - it's the "Western" date), "Julian Easter" (a calendar definitely fully deprecated by the time the chart starts) and the "Eastern" (Orthodox) vs "Western" (everybody else) dates is a) ridiculously huge, and b) frankly, insulting to non-Christian religions by insinuating they all come from Easter, when in fact the reverse is true in some cases. Just as an FYI, the List of dates for Easter basically could be summed up in two lines instead of repeating the same information three times, and makes very little use of these templates. As far as I'm concerned, they're just in their articles for show and could just as soon be deleted and turned into a table in articles it's needed in, the utility of which is subjective. MSJapan (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    “Astronomical Easter” is the common date proposed by the resolution of the WCC Aleppo conference in 1997, which is linked as a source for Template:Table of dates of Easter. I believe it makes sense to collect such calendrical data in a single place, but I’m not sure it should be either of these templates: Wikidata maybe a better location. — Christoph Päper 05:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Just for the record, even though I made this nomination only on technical grounds, but I do agree with the merge proposal, and disagree with your arguments: I think neither the template is too large nor do I think that there is any insult in the combination of the information or its wording, and I find that hypersensitivity disturbing rather than helpful. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just FYI (because it affects template usage), List of dates for Easter has been redirected to Computus per the merge discussion hat's been sitting there for several months, and has actually fallen off the target talk page. I redirected the page because I discovered that once I dealt with the OR by addressing the redundant trivia (there were separate sections for "earliest", "latest" and "range of" Easter dates, set up with entirely arbitrary years for the trivia to work, and the earliest and latest dates define the range), all the unsourced "article" really said was "Easter ranges between two dates." MSJapan (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge as these are relevant dates in computing Easter. Julian Easter is also known as "Eastern" like Gregorian Easter is also known as "Western", "Astronomical Easter" is the proposed standard, Passover is linked with Easter historically, and the moon date is relevant. They could be merged with an article if only one uses them. —PC-XT+ 23:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – * {{Dates for Easter}} invokes Module:Easter for now ± 20 years, whereas {{Table of dates of Easter}} has hard-coded dates from a reliable source for years 2001–2025. My main concern, which resulted in the merge proposal, was the duplication of data, but if both templates could be made to rely upon the Lua module, that problem would vanish. Hiding certain table columns depending on a parameter value is possible, but messy, so two separate templates would be fine with me then. — Christoph Päper 21:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I would support such a merge of only the backend, if it is feasible. I might try a sandbox of this... —PC-XT+ 22:21, 9 July 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:WikiProject Temperature extremesEdit

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 merge. ~ Rob13Talk 00:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Temperature extremes with Template:WikiProject Meteorology.
This template should be deleted in favor of using a larger Template:WikiProject Meteorology to include the sub-project. This template at Category talk:2009 heat waves for example puts pages into the NA category instead of the cat category that's used at the Meterology project. Rather than keep multiple separate templates that operate differently for the same project, better to have the project use a single template with the sub-project included. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge as this sounds better than trying to keep the two in sync; templates with subprojects included seem to be better maintained, in my experience, than separate ones for the subprojects —PC-XT+ 20:43, 23 July 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:Pending changes table (expanded)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 move to a subpage. If you would still like to see it deleted, feel free to send it to MFD. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Pending changes table (expanded) with Template:Pending changes blocks.
Both templates appear to do the same thing (other than naming and coloring differences). Pppery (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, since neither template has any transclusions, it might make sense to delete both. Pppery (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:13, 8 July 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:PD-CA-State-Capitol-MuseumEdit

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 consensusPlastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Unused license tag, seems redundant to {{PD-CAGov}} FASTILY 11:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  • {{PD-CAGov}} means that the work was created by someone employed by the State of California and that the work therefore is in the public domain in the United States, although it might not be in the public domain outside the United States. It does not cover works by third parties who have transferred the copyright to the State of California.
{{PD-CA-State-Capitol-Museum}} seems to be valid in all countries, so it is a 'stronger' tag in cases where the tag applies, and therefore it's better to use this tag instead of {{PD-CAGov}} in all situations where this tag applies. It also seems that this covers works by third parties who have transferred the copyright to the State Capitol Museum.
I'd recommend checking if there is some situations where {{PD-CAGov}} can be migrated to {{PD-CA-State-Capitol-Museum}}, and thus keeping the template for the foreseeable future. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:11, 8 July 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:Denmark national football team matchesEdit

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. WP:REFUND applies. ~ Rob13Talk 05:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Not enough links to navigate Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:13, 8 July 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).