Open main menu

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 15

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log

Contents

May 15Edit

Template:Contains Akan textEdit

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. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

This template was only used on Ghana national football team, but I've removed it there because there were (AFAIK) no Akan special characters on that page. Also, as far as I can find (we don't have a lot of info about the Akan alphabet onwiki), the Akan language only uses Latin characters and some IPA symbols, which are probably well supported on almost all platforms. rchard2scout (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
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:Contains Ashanti textEdit

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. — JJMC89(T·C) 03:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Same as Contains Akan text. Barely used, and the only special characters that this language uses are the "open o" (`ɔ`) and epsilon (`ɛ`), which are part of IPA and generally well-supported. rchard2scout (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
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:MoreInfoEdit

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) * Pppery * it has begun... 21:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:MoreInfo, Template:Notsure, Template:Investigating and Template:LEG? with Template:Question.
This set of templates all feature a blue question mark inside a blue circle with some text. {{Question}} offers the option to customize the text, as such there really is no reason why there should be a different template for every variation of text anyone can think of, when it can be done with {{Question|label=foo}}. Gonnym (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep We still use all of these templates at SPI (except LEG? and Question). I don't see an issue with keeping shorthand templates, might as well remove {{=}} and use HTML syntax directly. The key differentiator is user experience. --qedk (t c) 15:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
    • It's just pointless having the same exact template 5 times in this example (there are others of this kind with even more). Just write what you want in the free-form text like any other template is made to work. This system just leads to endless versions. --Gonnym (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
      • @Gonnym: How is it pointless? If they're being used with the default text, they're not pointless. It's not more convenient to type more text if you used to have a shorthand. On the large scale, it might simplify the user experience by having less templates to choose from, but it certainly doesn't seem to simplify the experience for the existing users.
      • Drawing from a personal example, I think it's more productive to merge templates that aren't being used with their default text. eπi (talk | contribs) 11:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
      • @Gonnym: As an additional note, I'm in favor of template simplification where templates are functionally equivalent or identical in purpose. I just don't think that's the case here. eπi (talk | contribs) 16:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @QEDK: You said We still use all of these templates at SPI, but that is inaccurate. {{moreinfo}} is the only one that has been used at SPI. However, this doesn't appear to affect the rest of your point. eπi (talk | contribs) 16:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still more comments needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. {{moreinfo}} is used frequently at SPI. LEG? seems to be a very specialized template for List of Ediacaran genera. Overall, I don't see any harm in keeping these around – merging them seems to create more work than it saves. Mz7 (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep We use {{moreinfo}} at SPI. Agree with Mz7 that this creates a lot of work for mergers and for those who code our SPI page and scripts. Katietalk 14:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, with one caveat {{LEG?}} merits separate discussion as part of a set of 4 similar unused subst-only templates; I'll open a TfD after this one is closed, if no one else beats me to it. For the other four, here's the number of direct transclusions:
  • {{notsure}} and {{investigating}} are rarely used, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're worth deleting. I suppose we could go back and replace all the transclusions with {{question|label=Not sure.}} and {{question|label=Investigating}}, but I don't think template simplification outweighs the costs of disturbing already-completed discussions or denying these options to future users. {{moreinfo}} should clearly remain a separate template. eπi (talk | contribs) 12:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep {{moreinfo}} for the reasons already stated by others. Also, that stupid "considered for merging" message is appearing at SPI, and it's ugly. Someone should close this discussion--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
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).

Module:Other uses2Edit

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 Module:Other uses. Primefac (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Propose merging Module:Other uses2 with Module:Other uses.
If there really needs to two templates for this, then this module should be handled as another function inside Module:Other uses. Gonnym (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Module:Other uses2 without merging; unnecessary lua module, can be implemented in Wikitext. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 September 23#Module:Other uses2. (Trivia: I believe that this may be the first ever module merge that wasn't nominated by me). * Pppery * has returned 18:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete: the functionality of adding the disambiguation suffix is somewhat needless; I'd support deleting {{Template:Other uses2}} entirely, merging its uses to {{other uses}} with manual addition of "(disambiguation)" as necessary. The former saves some effort for power users, but it's otherwise needless maintenance bloat and extra confusion for newbies. If the template is to be kept, then yes, I've got no problem with simply merging the functionality into the other module—its separate nature is just an artifact of piecemeal Lua-fication of the templates. That said, I strongly oppose implementing the template as a wikitext injection to {{other uses}} in the way that Pppery proposed in the earlier TfD, with the same rationale as I mentioned there. As reference, I'm currently the sole author of both modules. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 03:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
    Just to be clear, all of the options you have suggested are preferable to me to the status quo of having two separate modules. * Pppery * has returned 20:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this needs a bit more input on how a merger/offboarding-of-purpose ought to take place
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nihiltres: proposals are both good options. I have no issue with either one and since they are the author of both modules, I'm ok with which ever decision they take. --Gonnym (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
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:Design-EUEdit

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 redirect to Template:Intellectual property laws of the European Union. No opposition, template content has been merged. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Design-EU with Template:Intellectual property laws of the European Union.
Overlapping templates. {{Intellectual property laws of the European Union}} was just recently merged with {{Trademark-EU}} per this TfD for the same reasons. Gonnym (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't know much about the topic area, but since the intellectual property rights template has a section for design rights already, having a separate small design rights navbox seems superfluous. I did a spot-check and added the one missing link Hague Agreement from {{Design-EU}} to {{Intellectual property laws of the European Union}}. eπi (talk | contribs) 00:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs a bit more commentary
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
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:32TeamBracket-Compact-NoSeedsEdit

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 after replacement. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Folk of {{32TeamBracket-Compact|seeds=no}} Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment would the two work in the same way?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    UCO2009bluejay, the only difference is that one invoke module while the other do not. But both output and usage is the same Hhkohh (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • replace with {{32TeamBracket|compact=yes|seeds=no and delete. Frietjes (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A bit more input is needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace. When it takes basically the same amount of typing to use two templates as one, there's no reason to split the code between two. eπi (talk | contribs) 00:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment See User:Nigej/sandbox which shows that the replacement is not actually identical to the original, just similar. The "score" field is more compact in the replacement and in addition the replacement causes some wrapping issues for me, again being more compact (see Charles Whitcombe/Ernest Riseborough). Nigej (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Nigej: Can you take a screenshot of the wrapping issues you refer to? I don't see any from the sandbox example you gave, but I probably missed them.
    In any case, {{32TeamBracket-Compact|seeds=no}} can probably be revised to remove these differences, but this was good to bring up. eπi (talk | contribs) 12:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    Not sure how to upload a screenshot. In any case the issue seems to be that the column is created somewhat narrower than the original and when displayed, my browser decides to split Charles and Whitcombe, so they appear on different lines. Nigej (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    Nigej, to eliminate wrapping, you can use the auto width syntax. not sure why this isn't the default for all of them. Frietjes (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks, no wrapping now. Columns somewhat narrower still, but not really an issue I think. Nigej (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
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:Transit visibility tableEdit

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

All but four of the 28 non-header articles were deleted by AfD in 2016. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 00:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm neutral on this one but you might want to check whatever tool you used to emplace the Deletion Notice as it messed up the link to this discussion. I've fixed it but you might also like to check any other templates you've nominated just in case. —Phil | Talk 14:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
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 Venezuelan municipalityEdit

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. And replace with {{Infobox settlement}} beforehand Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Replace and delete

Municipality-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.

Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country".

States, towns, villages etc. already transclude {{Infobox settlement}} directly. 78.55.48.101 (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

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 townlandsEdit

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 after replacement with {{Infobox settlement}}. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Replace and delete

Northern Ireland townland-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.

Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country".

Counties, towns, villages etc. already transclude {{Infobox settlement}} directly.

Visualisation of Northern Ireland place infobox usage
 
Infobox usage on articles about places in Northern Ireland

89.12.139.236 (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. If this were to be deleted, then shouldn't the template to replace it be {{Infobox UK place}} (which is the template used for settlements in Northern Ireland)? – Uanfala (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    • No - look at the pie chart above. Infobox UK place does not feature; and the nominated template is a wrapper for Infobox settlement, not a wrapper for Infobox UK place. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
      • {{Infobox UK place}} doensn't feature in the pie chart because it wasn't included. Using the same type of petscan query the chart is based on [1], you can see that this template has 638 transclusions on Northern Ireland articles, that's three times more than {{Infobox settlement}}. – Uanfala (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    • No - the nominated template is a wrapper for Infobox settlement, not a wrapper for Infobox UK place. "is the template used for settlements in Northern Ireland" - No, only for some. 89.12.191.4 (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The template was extensively discussed in 2012, with an outcome of "no consensus". – Uanfala (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    • The closing summary of that debate said "Perhaps a good first step would be to refactor the template as a frontend, and then discuss the merits of having the template as a frontend vs. substituting it.". The refactoring has been done; this is the discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete, same reason as for London borough [2], too many different boxes for the UK, all with low number of transclusions. JelgavaLV (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete, per above. TerraCyprus (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
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).