Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 February 5

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 4 February 6 >

February 5 edit

Template:Dailybleed 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. Primefac (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External link template. Links are dead and I doubt the site meets our reliability/external links standards anyway. Recommend deletion for its four uses rather than substitution. czar 22:11, 5 February 2017 (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:TLC 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 Wrong venue (and no, Beyoncetan, you should not delete this conversation, just close it, like this) (non-admin closure) Pppery 20:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the template to Template:TLC (group) to avoid confusion with Template:Tlc and templates that are related to TLC (TV network). Beyoncetan (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2017 (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:PIHA 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. Primefac (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:EXISTING. Nearly all pages linked to have been deleted via WP:AFD Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete None of the red links are ever likely to turn blue and what remains does not justify a template. Only one article uses it and that count, even if it were to increase, which I really doubt, could never be more than a tiny number. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom and rationale above. GauchoDude (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2017 (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:AU-INPresidents 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. Primefac (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, provides navigation to only two pages which can be wikilinked instead Aloneinthewild (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2017 (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:Latvia University of Agriculture Faculties 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. Primefac (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, provides navigation to only one article Aloneinthewild (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, no useful navigation. Frietjes (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; onoly one article linked --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2017 (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:User Hurricane 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 Moved to MFD (non-admin closure) Pppery 21:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This template just seems so much like fan craft and something so trivial that probably shouldnt be celebrated. I also note that there is currently only one usage of the template, whose christian name was used for a very deadly system last year and I would be very surprised if it is not retired when the WMO's hurricane committee meets at the end of March Jason Rees (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2017 (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-AR-Presidency 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. Primefac (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused copyright tag. Any future uploads under this license belong at Commons. FASTILY 11:55, 5 February 2017 (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 Fluss 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 do not merge, but make Fluss into a substitute-only wrapper Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Fluss with Template:Infobox river.
I see no reason that German rivers should be treated any differently than all other rivers in the world. I also do not understand this logic behind having a template on the ENGLISH wiki where the parameters are in German. The argument in favor of this is so that I can easily copy and paste data from the German wiki. That is an absurd reason IMHO. You can't copy and paste the whole page anyway because it has to be translated. The same should be true for the Infobox. This whole infobox should be in English. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. One way to do this would be to turn Convert this into a substitution-only template, like {{Internetquelle}}. This one looks more complex, however. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Previous TFD was closed as "keep as a substitutable template", but it looks like that result has not been implemented yet. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but convert to subst-only template. @Zackmann08 you know this is the normal Wiki procedure for such templates as we exhaustively discussed it elsewhere. @Jonesey95, you're right and it has been done for more complex templates like this. But it needs someone who knows how to do it. dePiep, Agathoclea and Andy Dingley: are you able to help with this one so it operates like Template:Infobox Berg? --Bermicourt (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bermicourt: does that mean it cannot be discussed again? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but convert. Having recently tried to manually fill a river infobox from german data, I appreciated the option to use Infobox Fluss. Total nightmare. Anyway the decision had been made, but not implemented yet, and Bermicourt: sorry, I am not up to intricate template programming. Agathoclea (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But do you know a man who is? ;) Actually I would have a go myself, but might need help if I got in a fix! --Bermicourt (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Agathoclea: my question is why are you copying and pasting data from another Wiki?? You could make that same argument with any page, in any topic and any language... I would like to be able to copy and paste soccer teams from the Spanish Wiki... So do we now create a Template:Infobox football club that is in spanish so that I can copy and paste this data? This is an English wiki, if you want to add a page about a river, add it in English. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Translation templates are useful tools that help editors build the encyclopedia. I think the burden is on the proposer to show if en.WP consensus has changed from the original TFD and that translation templates should be removed from en.WP. This template currently has 288 transclusions, showing that editors find it useful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Methinks the 'burden' is for the "translator" (the copy/paste editor) really. That editor should do some real translating\uebersetzung in the first place. -DePiep (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fuss and forbid any de:copy/en:paste. There is no sound reason to 'translate' (actually: it is a dump) German parameters into an undocumented enwiki template. We could allow four weeks for editors to 'translate' Fuss into {{Infobox river}}, maybe they can even do real work and propose new parameters. (I claim authority: for en:{{Infobox Schienenfahrzeug}}, here is the list of full parameter transition from de: to en:. It's a horror). -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply put the forbidding of copying the de:template as such is nonsense. The template in question here contains one of the easiest verifiable datasets possible. The data is not in question but the translation of the parameters is where the difficulty is. Agathoclea (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yesss, the translation of the parameters is where the difficulty is! That is the problem! One can not expect from an Enlish language editor on an English language wiki to go translating German before being able to make an edit (be it in the article or in the template). So stop requiring German language knowledge.
And also: not just the translation. Also the meaning or definition of that parameter in dewiki is an issue. See this translate & transpose effort for those 120 German parameters in one template. BTW, I don't get why you link to an easiest verifiable datasets source in German. -DePiep (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why would someone who has no understanding of German even want to edit the template? With all the sourcing being in German it would be a rather grueling undertaking. You are complaining of a single effort of matching the parameters of the template but expect someone who is quite able to verify the data in the template waste a significant amount of time every single instance of transfering data. Even if you do understand both languages and get familiar with the template parameters, the effort is out of proportion. Then again the the argument is even more pointless when the substituting of the parameters will allow an non-german speaker to look at the source of the template data. They still can't edit it as they won't be able to understand the sources. Agathoclea (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Agathoclea: Really dumb argument. I don't speak German and I want to edit the template because it doesn't use {{Infobox}}. So based on what you said, I shouldn't do so since I don't speak German? How about the fact that this entire Wiki is ENGLISH. Why should we be expected to know German to edit a template? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking of editing the data in the template, something you need to be able to understand the sources which for a large part of the rivers in Germany are only in German. Editing the template code is another matter. In fact within the code the translations are already provided, as the infobox output is presented in English already. Agathoclea (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Q: Why would someone who has no understanding of German even want to edit the template? A: To improv e this English language wiki. Agree with Zackmann08: a dumb argument. And yes, it is a grueling undertaking (is what I said, did you click?). -DePiep (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Data not code. Agathoclea (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(I self blanked my edits: not helpful) ping Agathoclea -DePiep (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who? The issue is, that bot does not exist. The question is: what if no editor does this? Why allow and keep German or Chinese language parameters? -DePiep (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
who creates the wrapper = me? see the sandbox link provided directly above your comment. which bot does the substitution = AnomieBOT? how does AnomieBOT know to substitute it, see Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted. Frietjes (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my bad reading. Was looking for a bot. -DePiep (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who? ~-DePiep (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a substitution template for review in the template's sandbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I do not agree with this suggestion. One of the useful features of translation templates is that they have the same name as the template on the foreign-language WP so that they are easy to copy and paste to en.WP. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copy-pasting itself is a debatable topic. Are you saying whoever is doing the copy-paste job cant put in a little bit more effort to type in a few extra characters? Or at least see what option we have for transferring content first? I don't think it should be that simple for someone to just "dump" copied content from elsewhere. There should be some effort or work in translating, IMO more than just having only to rename a template. Anyway, I'll leave that part of the discussion to you guys. I just think it should be a subpage, as it is directly related to {{Infobox river}}. Rehman 17:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete, or replace with a subst:-only wrapper. We don't need to litter our articles with improted templates from other Wikipedias. Why German, and not French, Spanish and others? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:26, 11 February 2017 (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:Roads of Memphis 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. Primefac (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better suited by a category. Also see past Valdosta precedent, since confirmed here, here, here, and here, here, and here, and here. Rschen7754 02:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—per precedent and my past comments on these. Imzadi 1979 → 03:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per past precedent. Dough4872 13:17, 5 February 2017 (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:Nintendo.com archive 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. Replace all uses with internet archive links if available, otherwise mark instances with {{dead link}}. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine this template was originally intended to link to the official website for Nintendo games, but we use the {{official website}} template with Wikidata now. There is no remaining use for this template, and every instance I checked was a dead link anyway. czar 10:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some documentation first: I created this as a template to standardize Nintendo.com URLs because even when they changed the URL structure the page ID stayed the same. This is not a citation or official link template as suggested by the nominator. The pages it links to are the standard game information pages Nintendo maintained at the time. If the games had homepage, it would have been something like http://www.zelda.com/ for example. Looking at the previous deletion discussion, they modified it to point to Internet Archive copies of the pages after Nintendo changed everything again. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst Transform the template into a subst to change the 40+ pages using into something using whatever the standard Internet Archive template is. Failing that, then keep. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we subst dead links? Whatever the original intent was, the template has outlived its purpose czar 20:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • replace with standard internet archive links if sensible. Frietjes (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2017 (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:Unicode chart 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. Primefac (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that's been blank since August 2014. Avicennasis @ 21:32, 29 Tevet 5777 / 21:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that these charts are by block, not by script. Maybe a more effective tree would be created as: "Script Abcd is in blocks A, B, C" (expend table in Script (Unicode)?). Or/and the category you mention could be diffused into subcategories. -DePiep (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, until someone makes the tremendous and dull effort to create subcategories, I think this should be kept. – Uanfala (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
re Uanfala: Which categories, how, why, what at all? I don't understand a single letter. -DePiep (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep:, I was replying to your comment: the category you mention could be diffused into subcategories. If this category is diffused into subcategories and it is agreed that the new category tree renders the template redundant, then there would be grounds for deletion. Unless this happens, I don't see the point of deletion. Cheers! – Uanfala (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well, IMO diffusing into subcategories is not a requirement for this template deletion. -DePiep (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2017 (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/2017_February_5&oldid=1087817581"