Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 29

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 28 January 30 >

January 29 edit

Template:List of positive integers and factors/bottom 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article was deleted. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete / speedy delete, as based on a nonexisted article? --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No useful purpose. Nigej (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2019 (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:S-fam 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:Ahnentafel. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:S-fam with Template:Ahnentafel.
Template:Ahnentafel is a result of a merge of previous similar templates for different numbers of ancestors to include. Then there is the old Template:S-fam, used as seen in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Genealogy#Templates. However, one could argue that one, standardised ancestry chart is sufficient for convenience. Possibily - but I hesitate - Template:Ahnentafel could include style elements of the Template:S-fam solution (in fact Template:S-anc, more properly speaking). Either way, though, it seems to me that the Template:S-fam could and should be dropped altogether. Shouldn't one solution suffice, with a standardised look agreed upon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PPEMES (talk • contribs) 00:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I designed this little template to be a supplement to succession boxes, but it never took off and the standard Ahnentafel template has generally taken over everywhere. I do agree that aspects of the Ahnentafel chart are less than appealing, but there's no reason for there to be multiple types of chartes. Mine was an attempt before standardisation but has fallen to the wayside. – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 03:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete, we don't need it since everyone is using ahnentafel instead. Frietjes (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 
Ahnentafel of Trapp (right to left tree)
Excuse me, this may be my bad. It was I who proposed that failed merger with a former username. Feel free to delete this proposal if you consider it unfit to make a new proposal in such a short time. Sorry! PPEMES (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you not mention the previous merger request and simultaneously mention that it was you who had made the previous request when you first proposed this second request in under a year? -- PBS (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because I forgot about it. PPEMES (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if editors want to use {{ahnentafel}} they are free to do so whether this template exists or not. However if it is deleted then editors are no longer able to choose to use this style. I fail to see what advantage to the project is gained by reducing editor choice. -- PBS (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge or deletion for the reason given by user:Frietjes in April last year "{{ahnentafel}} should not be put in a stack of {{succession box}} templates." Also I do not think that this template should be deleted until {{ahnentafel}} can handle right to left trees (like this one does). Add code to {{ahnentafel}} and then discuss deletion of this template. -- PBS (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete S-fam is only used on four articles, and Ahnentafel on many more. It would simplify things to remove S-fam as per nom and Whaleyland. It standardises the editing and the reading experience and lets improvements be made to a single template which is particularly relevant in a template doing something this complex. WP:NOTFINISHED is not an excuse for inaction, and so I don't agree with PBS nor see a compelling reason why this shouldn't be deleted. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Tom (LT) there is a general conensus that there should be consistency within an article but not across articles. Your argument would suggest that MOS:ENGVAR should be scrapped and everything should be written in American English to "standardises the editing and the reading experience". As to your argument "lets improvements be made to a single template" then make the improvements to the template so that it can also display ancestory right to left (as this template does) and then this template will becomes less useful. However to delete it before such changes are made deminishes the Wikipedia project. -- PBS (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure you are understanding me here (I have supported maintaining the other anhentafel variants). The point is that there are enough variants at present. This is only used in four articles so clearly there is not a major demand for it, probably this is because (1) templates that accomplish what editors what already exist at other names and (2) the templates are confusingly named and therefore not used. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2019 (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 Russian federal subject 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 Convert to {{Infobox settlement}} wrapper. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This infobox can be turned into an {{Infobox settlement}} wrapper; see the test cases. (Not a deletion proposal). eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting mostly because of similar/recent discussions regarding the removal of {{infobox settlement}} wrappers in favour of just using the infobox directly; I'd like to see additional thoughts/comments on that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2019 (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:Sheffield Steelers 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zero active links --woodensuperman 13:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not enough or zero links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not enough links. Kraose (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2019 (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:Belfast Giants 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One active link. --woodensuperman 13:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not enough or zero links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not enough links. Kraose (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2019 (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:Telford Tigers 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One active link --woodensuperman 13:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not enough or zero links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not enough links. Kraose (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2019 (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:Peterborough Pirates 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No active links --woodensuperman 13:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not enough or zero links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not enough links. Kraose (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2019 (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:Fife Flyers 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links to zero articles --woodensuperman 13:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not enough or zero links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not enough links. Kraose (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2019 (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:Peterborough Pirates 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. See above — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template is a sea of redlinks. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:35, 29 January 2019 (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:Rugby union in Guam 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. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Little navigational use: of 6 entries, 2 are redlinks and 2 are off topic relating to the US rather than Guam. Jellyman (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per being part of a series and the possibility for expansion, but the two U.S. links should be removed. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 18:22, 30 January 2019 (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:Social Christianity 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 2019 February 7. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:38, 7 February 2019 (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/2019_January_29&oldid=1051417877"