Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 29

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

June 29 edit

Template:Sera Cahoone 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Navigates too little content. If we had articles on all four of her albums, this would be a different story ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are not enough links to justify a navigational template and WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 21:54, 6 July 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 time zone UTC 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 time zone. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox time zone UTC with Template:Infobox time zone.
I've been looking at the UTC template a lot lately, and it occurred to me a few days ago that it's kind of an uglier and less useful version of the other infobox. As mentioned on the talk page the "other time zones" information is already in {{UTC time offsets}} and the UTC infobox has less information than the other, which makes the UTC IB rather pointless. Primefac (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: "IB"? Meaning? - dcljr (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC) — Of course (explanation below). - dcljr (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dcljr: from the context, it looks like Infobox. ‑‑YodinT 05:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: the UTC infobox is especially cluttered. In an ideal world, we would only have the specific timezone highlighted (and maybe centred) for each infobox image, rather than every time zone coloured in a complete world-wide image. ‑‑YodinT 05:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It seems uncontroversial to me, is it? —Your's sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not particularly controversial, but with all of the back-and-forth and edit warring I figured a solid consensus would help dissuade further arguing. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While perhaps not "controversial", this merge proposal is, I think, "nontrivial". For one thing, only "half" of the template's functionality (that relevant to an individual offset) is to be merged under this proposal. These features are almost completely "automated" in the source template (keying off of {{PAGENAME}}), while no such automation is found in the target template. Presumably, this means that much of the information currently "cached" in subpages of the source template will need to be specified in calls to the merged template (namely, the "central", "east", "west" and "dtg" info). This isn't a problem, per se, but does somewhat complicate the process of replacing the old template with the new one. In addition, the target template has a lot of "logic" in it related to DST, which is only relevant for time zones (not time offsets). And as for the other "half" of the source template's functionality (related to info about "all offsets"), all that will either be scrapped completely or merged elsewhere (into Template:UTC time offsets). While this latter aspect has been discussed in general terms at Template talk:Infobox time zone UTC#Split proposal, nothing specific has been agreed to (for which I take most of the blame, since I haven't exactly been moving the ball forward on my own proposal). In light of all this, I have to request (at the risk of seeming hypocritical): Primefac, could you (or someone else interested in this) create a possible merged version in Template:Infobox time zone/sandbox with accompanying testcases in Template:Infobox time zone/testcases, to see how the merge would actually work in practice? - dcljr (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I created a "merged" version, but I have to overcome some difficulties. Anyway, here is my test.
—Your's sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found that my test is failed. In order to compensate, I need to start an infobox from scratch.

—Your's sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, @Primefac: what is your decision?

—Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata 10:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soumyabrata, I started the nomination so it is not up for me to decide. As a minor note, I would strongly suggest changing the way your signature appears, because the line break sometimes breaks indenting. The extra white space also makes it harder to track in the source editor. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 14 July 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:2019 AFC Asian Cup qualification – Third Round Group A table 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 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY and prior discussions at WP:TFD Frietjes (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:45, 1 July 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:Adriatic League seasons 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

duplicates list of seasons found in Template:ABA League Frietjes (talk) 13:56, 29 June 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).

Canada transit 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 -FASTILY 04:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Set of templates which implemented s-line style functionality for Canadian transit operators. Reimplemented in Module:Adjacent stations/Canada transit and Module:Adjacent stations/Brampton Transit. All transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per past consensus to migrate to Adjacent stations module. BLAIXX 15:52, 4 July 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).

Brampton Transit 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 -FASTILY 04:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Brampton Transit. All transclusions replaced. Mackensen (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per past consensus to migrate to Adjacent stations module. BLAIXX 15:52, 4 July 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_June_29&oldid=906460463"