Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 November 27

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 26 November 28 >

November 27 edit

Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 2nd ID 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 ~ Rob13Talk 21:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template contains two entries, one of which is a redirect to a list. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:51, 27 November 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:Knight's Cross recipients of the 359th ID 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 ~ Rob13Talk 21:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template contains one entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:42, 27 November 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:Knight's Cross recipients of the 33rd ID 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 ~ Rob13Talk 21:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template contains two entries, one of which is a redirect to a list. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:38, 27 November 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:Knight's Cross recipients of the 85th ID 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 ~ Rob13Talk 21:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template contains two entries, both of which are redirects to a list. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:24, 27 November 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:Knight's Cross recipients of the 342nd ID 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 ~ Rob13Talk 21:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template contains two entries, one of which is a redirect to a list. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:12, 27 November 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:Unblock request declined 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 Relisted on 2016 December 9 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:39, 9 December 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).

Radio stations 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 Relisted on 2016 December 9 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:14, 9 December 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:Cclink 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and unlikely to be used. It's easier to just link to the Commons category directly than use this template. ~ Rob13Talk 06:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currently unused, but I'd be interested on what assumptions the "unlikely to be used" is based. As the documentation indicates, it is designed to be used inside the definitions of infoboxes that fetch data from Wikidata. By using a cheap template like this we can avoid making two (more expensive) calls to Wikidata to fetch the same piece of information (the name of the commons category) twice - once for the link and once for the displayed text. I am astonished that anybody could suggest "just link to the Commons category" for a piece of information that will come from Wikidata. Please let me know how you're going to work that magic. --RexxS (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS, can you provide an example of an infobox which needs this? if I recall, the preferred placement of commons links is in the external links section, so one would use {{commons category}} instead? Frietjes (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
okay, I did find Template:Infobox observatory, Template:Infobox astronomical object, Template:Infobox cheese, Template:Infobox astronomical survey, Template:Infobox astronomical event, and Template:Infobox telescope. so, if you want to add it to those templates, I would say we should keep this. Frietjes (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I created it for use in Template:Infobox biosphere reserve where I was asked to include |commons_category= in the infobox, and also to arrange that the template would fetch data from Wikidata, when enabled. As soon as you fetch the name of the commons category from Wikidata (because there's no guarantee that it's the same as the page name), you need that unknown name twice. I believe it's cheaper to pass it as a parameter to a helper template which can use the passed parameter for both the link and the displayed text, than it is to call Wikidata twice for the same piece of information. Of course I stand to be corrected if that's not the case. --RexxS (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ooh, this is useful, thanks Frietjes for pointing out this discussion! It's now in use in Template:Infobox observatory, and with a bit of tweaking of the formatting it's working nicely. Except for the TfD label also being displayed whenever it's used... If this has to be deleted, then we can switch back to the more manual system, but this template does help template-editor and server efficiency. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RexxS & Mike Peel. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 3 December 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:Cc-by-sa-2.0-be 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 Relisted on 2016 December 9 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:15, 9 December 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:Pname 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 G7 by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template many years ago. It is not used, and not very useful. Given a place name in a format like "Seattle, Washington" it generates links to both the sub-region and overall region. For example: Seattle, Washington. I largely made this as an experiment to learn how to make a template.Bkwillwm (talk) 21:23, 27 November 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:Communities of Oak Ridges, Ontario 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 ~ Rob13Talk 09:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unused and generally duplicates navigation found in other navboxes Frietjes (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Appears to be in use on all linked pages. I see no duplication in any other navboxes on page. Outback the koala (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Outback the koala, did you check WhatLinksHere? at the moment, it is only used in one article. the articles linked within the navbox are using other navboxes, like Template:Richmond Hill, Ontario. Frietjes (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see what you mean, it appear that this navbox was removed at some point from all of its linked pages and then later nominated for deletion. I will re add this to the pages. As far as this navigation tool being more specific, seems totally reasonable to me. It's like a US state that has a box for all 50 US states and then also one more specific for topics which appear within it. This is analogous to that. Outback the koala (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:55, 27 November 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:South Korea men's football squad 2014 Asian Games 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{South Korea men's football squad 2014 Asian Games}}

Delete speedy: It is unnecessary due to being a non-Olympian multi-sport event. Like this entry.

And more similar templates must be deleted:

Template:South Korea women's football squad 2014 Asian Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
{{Pakistan men's football squad 2014 Asian Games}}
{{Iran Squad 2014 Asian Games Men's Volleyball}}
{{Korea Men Basketball Squad 2014 Asian Games}}
{{Korea Women Basketball Squad 2014 Asian Games}}
{{Philippines Men Basketball Squad 2014 Asian Games}}
{{Thailand men's football squad 2014 Asian Games}}
{{Iran football squad 1974 Asian Games}}
{{Hong Kong men's football squad 1990 Asian Games}}
{{Hong Kong men's football squad 1994 Asian Games}}
{{Hong Kong men's football squad 1998 Asian Games}}
{{Padania squad 2008 Viva World Cup}} (not notable)
Template:Canada women football squad 2003 Pan American Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Canada women football squad 2007 Pan American Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
{{United States men football squad 2007 Pan American Games}}
Template:United States women football squad 2007 Pan American Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
{{Argentina squad 1964 Taça das Nações}}
{{Brazil squad 1960 Taça do Atlântico}} (friendly)
{{Brazil squad 1976 Taça do Atlântico}} (friendly)
{{Brazil squad 1995 Umbro Cup}} (friendly)
{{Brazil squad 1997 Tournoi de France}} (friendly)
{{Uruguay squad 1980 Mundialito}} (friendly)
{{Brazil squad 1980 Mundialito}} (friendly)

And all templates included in this and this categories. JackHoang (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, navbox creep. Frietjes (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep women's football squads from Pan American Games, South Korea women's football squad 2014 Asian Games. Hmlarson (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary navbox creep. These athletes aren't known for participation in these squads. It's a tiny portion of their career. ~ Rob13Talk 08:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the men's football and other sports templates from the Pan American Games / Asian Games got deleted, then I see no reason to save the women's football templates. Joeykai (talk) 22:37, 4 December 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:Heads of the Ministries of the Government of India 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 Relisted on 2016 December 7 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:01, 7 December 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:Suvarnabhumi Airport Link 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 ~ Rob13Talk 09:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and outdated, see Airport Rail Link (Bangkok). Matthewmayer (talk) 18:40, 27 November 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:Yugoslavia squad - 1967 FIBA World Championship for Women 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 Relisted on 2016 December 9 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:14, 9 December 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:Yugoslavia squad - 1964 FIBA World Championship for Women 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 soft deletion. Nn94 14 indicates they wouldn't object if this was a valid rationale, and being a frequent closer of TfDs, I see multiple rationales available here that are regualarly applied. First, navboxes are usually considered not useful when they navigate between less than four existing articles, which applies to one of these. Second, there's quite a bit of precedent that being a part of international teams is only worth a navbox for major sports when the team wins a major competition (or, depending on the level of the competition, comes very close). WP:Template creep is usually applied at similar past discussions. ~ Rob13Talk 10:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

6th and 4th place squads, not notable Frietjes (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes:, The only reason for deletion is that it is not winnig one of the first three places? Where in the regulations it says so. If you show a valid reason that should be deleted, I would not object. — Nn94 14 (talk) 16:52, 27 November 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:Slovenia Squad 2010 FIBA World Championship 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 Relisted on 2016 December 9 (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 01:14, 9 December 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:Central Station (MTR) 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only used in one article. Current convention for other MTR single-station diagrams is to have the RDT code within the article, like at Kowloon Station (MTR). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 13:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transfer the code from the template to the article, then delete the template, since the template was made before I decided to put the RDT code directly in the article. epicgenius (talk) 17:20, 28 November 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:Test cricket matches 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 Deleted per CSD G8 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template where all the articles never existed or have been deleted by AfD. As such, no longer needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:41, 27 November 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:ODI cricket matches 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 Deleted per CSD G8 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template where all the articles never existed or have been deleted by AfD. As such, no longer needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:41, 27 November 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 flag IPC alias AUS 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever reason, these templates were created as mirrors to the "Country flag IOC alias" templates. However, only 18 were created, and these 12 are duplicates of their IOC counterparts (and always have been). No need for duplicate items. I am wrapping the TFD notice with <noinclude>...</noinclude> so as to not break almost 3k pages. Primefac (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a note - these are heavily transcluded, but the only change necessary will be to remove these twelve codes from the #switch statement in {{FlagIPC}} and related templates. Primefac (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
it looks like the difference is with regard to the "year" argument. however, given how simple these are, we can just substitute them in Template:FlagIPC to further reduce the transclusion depth complexity. or, remove the special cases from the switch (assuming there won't be any problem with the second "year arg"). Frietjes (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But in that case, we're talking about reducing the accuracy. Based on the TFD to merge the Olympics infoboxes into {{infobox country at games}}, I'm going to have to update the IOC alias templates anyway. The Paralympics for 1980 (which is what these templates are avoiding) will not be affected. Primefac (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in which case? I list two options. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first, I think. You make a good point, though: no reason to have a template call when we don't need one. But whether we add in (for example) "Flag of Australia.svg" in the switch statement or call {{Country flag IOC alias AUS}}, the end result is the same (i.e. these templates are redundant). Primefac (talk) 00:32, 30 November 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_November_27&oldid=1073609767"