Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 28

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 27 March 29 >

March 28 edit

Template:Eurovision Song Contest 2018 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 delete. WP:REFUND applies once the 2018 competition actually yields relevant bluelinks. Primefac (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template has been created WP:TOOSOON and only contains 5 links and the only article using it at present is Eurovision Song Contest 2018. Naturally, a template of this kind will be required at some stage, but not this early. Wes Mouse Talk 23:53, 28 March 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:Guldbagge Awards hosts 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. This is close numerically, but the rationales are clearly stronger on the side of deletion. The existence of other templates is not a rationale to keep this template. WP:NAVBOX, a guideline, states we should use navboxes only for things already mentioned in all articles being linked, so the argument that it's impractical to list this information in all articles being linked is actually an argument that favors deletion. ~ Rob13Talk 05:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting a ceremony is a performance, and as such fails WP:PERFNAV. -- Rob Sinden (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If this template is being considered for deletion, should'nt the {{Academy Awards hosts}} template also be deleted as it also covers presnters of an awards ceremony? -- Regge_robban2 (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after adding to the article as a list - the navbox does provide useful navigation (since these people aren't known for being hosts), but the information is still of encyclopedic interest. Add it to the article and delete the template. As for the OSE argument above - maybe {{Academy Awards hosts}} should be deleted. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do you really propose adding this information to every single article in the template? That's completely impractical. It's a useful template, since these people aren't known just for being hosts, but mainly for other things. Smartyllama (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Smartyllama, you clearly wouldn't add this list to every single person's page, because as you say, these people aren't known just for being hosts. A navbox is supposed to allow people to navigate between people who are related by something they are well known for. Having a list on the main Guldbagge gives the encyclopedic info without cluttering up the bottom 30 articles. Primefac (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:35, 28 March 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:Talk-warn 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 Procedurally close. I believe the confusion regarding merge/delete is interfering with the actual "delete both" nomination. I am closing this TFD and relisting here. Primefac (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User warning template for noncontroversial speedy deletion criteria. — Train2104 (t • c) 03:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge: I think both templates forfil the same criteria, merging should be easy to perform. AtlasDuane (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - while they both may be G6 rationale, they are very different reasons. It would make no sense to receive a "this redirect is broken" note when it was in fact a talk page that was tagged (and vice versa). Primefac (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They're two very different templates, so it makes no sense to merge them, and policy requires users be notified, so we can't delete them. Smartyllama (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment I never suggested merging, I suggested deletion. This is a template for G8, a criteria that is almost always used for uncontroversial cleanup. In fact, if you look at the the code behind suggested CSD warning template ({{CSD-warn}}) you'll see that G8 isn't even one of the choices, and that {{db-g8}} doesn't suggest a notification template nor does it have a button to contest. — Train2104 (t • c) 01:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the clarification Train2104; I let the first !vote by AtlasDuane colour my perception of the nomination. I'll strike my "oppose merge" vote since it makes no sense in the new light. Also pinging Smartyllama, since they seem to be under the same impression. Primefac (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:34, 28 March 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:Faith primary 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 merge to Template:Religious text primary, taking into account the format of the merged text as discussed. Primefac (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Faith primary with Template:Religious text primary.
2 templates that do the same thing.

66 "Faith primary" transclusions to 271 "Religious text primary" transclusions.

So "Faith primary" is going to be the one to go. Mr. Guye (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional support, if we merge the texts also. 'Faith primary' reads "uncritically uses the texts and opinions from within a religion, faith, or other belief system" and 'Religious text primary' reads "improperly uses one or more religious texts". We could merge them into "uncritically uses texts from within a religion or faith system", for example. Debresser (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:20, 28 March 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 Hindu temple 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 merge to Template:Infobox religious building. Consensus is strongly in favour of converting {{Infobox Hindu temple}} into a wrapper for IB religious building. Primefac (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Hindu temple should be merged into Infobox religious building as it takes in similar fields to other religious buildings that are redundant. Template box can also be automatically recolored for differences. --Cs california (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support per Cs california -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 07:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: the Hindu temple template has customized forms on language etc, which seems helpful. @Frietjes: can we create another wrapper? While we are working on this, perhaps time to add additional entries such as Stupa height, Gopuram height, Shikhara height, etc just like we have for Spire, Minaret etc in the current religious building template. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't think the language things are too useful because there is a side bar for wikipedia in other language. But to keep it I would just put it in fields native_name_lang and native_name. --Cs california (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: (but see conditional support under @Andy Mabbett's comment) The Infobox religious building is a template tailored to Christian and Muslim religious buildings. It lacks fields for Buddhist, Hindu etc. temples. The proposer has neither made a detailed comparison of which field matches which, nor stated what is wrong with having a dedicated Hindu temple template. I don't see the "taking in similar fields" (e.g. mandapa, gopuram(s), etc related). If the main religious building template were expanded with tailored entries for other religions just like it does for Christian with Dome, Islam with Minaret etc, or a wrapper proposed, I would reconsider my vote. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to know all the matching fields it is all the images, captions and name data; the pushpin maps and coordinate data, country and local data, establishment data. But if you check the documentation Buddhism is already combined into Template:Infobox religious building. The only one that is not added is the Mormon temple one which is loading data from a table (I think). I nominated it because most of these templates were already condense and it seems out of place to exclude some of them.
If we decide to merge it there are two options for adding the fields that are not there
  1. add an smaller module for the subfields like Template:Infobox pepper within Template:Infobox cultivar on pages like 'Fresno Chili' pepper.
  2. Add more fields.
--Cs california (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cs california: I must not be looking at the right page. The template documentation you linked only shows how the coloring for Buddhism is integrated in. No mention of stupa height or diameter, nor of chaitya-griha, nor of viharas, and so on. Is this all explained on some other page? My main concern is encouraging editors for whom English is not the first language. Minaret, dome, spire are incorrect and unfamiliar terms (spire approx applies in some cases). Most notable Buddhist, Jain, Hindu and Sikh temples are a regional south, southeast and east Asia thing. Regional editors are likely to know the data or sources better. If we create or revise existing template, to include useful information with religion-specific terms that are verifiable in English language RS, we would avoid confusing newbies, may be get more participation, and improve the quality and quantity of notable information in the infobox. How to do this best, only template code writing wizards may know. By the way, while we are at this, let us also add color code for Sikhism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Arguments that the generic template lacks certain properties from the other are illogical; the merge would include them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andy Mabbett, if merge or wrapper would include additional properties discussed above, I too support the merge. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you guys think reducing the hindu template to be a smaller box to embed using |module={{Template:Infobox Hindu temple |fields =}} be ok or too complex? Just want to know if the extra information is significant enough to save or should it be found inside the page. --Cs california (talk) 08:48, 29 March 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 name module 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 2017 April 7. Primefac (talk) 00:20, 7 April 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:Straight Edge Society 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 2017 April 5. Primefac (talk) 01:47, 5 April 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:Colorado State University presidents 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 2017 April 7. Primefac (talk) 00:15, 7 April 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:University of Northern Colorado presidents 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) 00:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One link, fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:23, 29 March 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:Hofstra University presidents 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) 00:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two links is not enough to navigate... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:23, 29 March 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:Precision1 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) 00:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No longer needed now that {{precision}} uses LUA. Frietjes (talk) 14:40, 28 March 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:MNDR 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. Can of course be recreated/undeleted if and when more content is bluelinked. Primefac (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barely links anything. No need for a footer yet. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:14, 28 March 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_March_28&oldid=1142562397"