Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 20

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< July 19 July 21 >

July 20 edit

Template:Citadel Communications 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. Izno (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time, Citadel Communications owned five TV stations. Now it has one. There are no longer enough links to justify a template. Raymie (t • c) 19:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I concur with the analysis. --Bsherr (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2020 (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:Ultima Online 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. Izno (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contents entirely included at Template:Ultima and seems redundant. It feels appropriate to just use the consolidated template at relevant articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When I originally created the template back in 2008, the idea was to keep the single-player Ultima and the MMO Online separate. However, since the Online content has since been merged into the main Ultima template, we don't need this one anymore. --Koveras (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2020 (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:Interface administrators access 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template has not been transcluded anywhere but its parent page and should be re-merged into that page. If and when necessary it can be either transcluded by section or spun back out as a separate table. Izno (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep think it could have some other uses, and object to the idea of using section transclusion as a future replacement. — xaosflux Talk 15:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Notably, this does need some expanding/cleanup (even if this result in a subst: closure). — xaosflux Talk 15:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute and delete. I concur with the nominator. For any future additional transclusions, the template may be recreated. --Bsherr (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete I can't think of anywhere else this would ever be used. No prejudice against recreation should such a "somewhere else" later come up. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • substitute and delete, only one use, and can easily be moved back to a template if more uses are identified. Frietjes (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2020 (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:OMIM2 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:OMIM. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:OMIM2-6 with Template:OMIM.
There are 6 in total OMIM templates, most of which differ in only small ways and apart from OMIM 1-2 are only used on a handful of pages.

All templates exist to link to a numbered OMIM page

From my understanding:

  • OMIM: displays "Online mendelian inheritance in Man (OMIM)" before link, and has an optional parameter for the link name
  • OMIM2: just links to the page, no intro
  • OMIM3: does the same as OMIM2, but displays an external link icon
  • OMIM4: seems to do the same as OMIM2-3, "designed for use in infoboxes", but not used
  • OMIM5: displays the prefix: "OMIM" and then the number with an external link icon
  • OMIM6: displays "OMIM" followed by the title followed by the number

I propose merge all to the same template with the following options:

  • parameter "title" for the page title (with a default value of empty)
  • parameter "form" with options 'short' (for 'OMIM'), 'long' (for 'Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man') and 'none' (with no preceding intro), set to default of 'long' for OMIM, 'short' for OMIM5-6, and otherwise defaulting to none.

I think that will help editors by making it easier to select a template, and make the reading experience more consistent, and also help future editors / readers by ensuring that it is easier to maintain links.

In this circumstance, I think it would be most useful to "Replace and delete" so that the templates and form of templates to use is most clear to editors, rather than use wrappers etc. Tom (LT) (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Simplification is the way forward. JFW | T@lk 19:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, please, merge these. There's no reason we need 6 templates to do the same thing. (I might even argue we don't need parameterization and should just pick one representation, but I won't hinge a close on that.) --Izno (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Agreed. --Bsherr (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2020 (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:IowaHistologySlide 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) TheTVExpert (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created 14 years ago, still used once. I propose this is replaced with a plain external link on that page. Tom (LT) (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2020 (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:A note 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:A note. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:A note with Template:Note2.
These templates are almost identical in content and purpose. The distinction between these templates and the unrelated Template:Note is unclear, so we need to determine the name at which the merged template should be. I cannot tag the templates because they are both template-protected. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. To the extent I can tell, they are functionally the same, other than the icons being different sizes. The size of that particular icon should probably be standardized among the templates that use it in Category:Image with comment templates. The code of Note2 is more efficient, so I would recommend redirecting the other to it. Also, I have added the TfD banners to both templates. --Bsherr (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. To my recollection, in 2012 I was looking for a template that does what these do, but {{note}} was part of an antique system of referencing, so I created {{a note}}. To think, all I had to do was randomly stick a digit on the name and I would have found it! ;) I suggest the merge is made into the title {{a note}}, retaining the other code per Bsherr, because {{note}} and {{note2}} being completely different kinds of thing is just confusing.  — Scott • talk 16:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge; I had no idea that {{note2}} exists. Ideal candidate for merging. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 00:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: just noting because I saw it on another page that {{administrator note}} seems to call {{A note}}, because it's still showing up with the "administrator note" text but is also transcluding a link to this discussion. If these templates are merged please make sure that the admin note template doesn't break as a result. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Won't be an issue. The icon may however change size slightly. --Trialpears (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge "A note" is the better title per Scott. --Trialpears (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to {{A note}} per Scott --DannyS712 (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2020 (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:Administrative divisions of Australia 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) TheTVExpert (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template is only used on States and territories of Australia and doesn't really serve any significant role or role that can't be replaced by a hatnote. ItsPugle (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2020 (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:Spanish colonization of the Americas (narrow) 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:Spanish colonization of the Americas. Then delete after merger completed. (non-admin closure) Bsherr (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Functional, if not exact, duplicate of Template:Spanish colonization of the Americas that's only used on a single page Vahurzpu (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2020 (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:Depressogenics 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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template is not used in article space. It lists drugs which have been associated with depression as a side-effect. Firstly, such a symptom is both common and non-specific and may not be directly attributable to the action of the drug. Inclusion criteria are unclear and contents are unsourced. Lastly, it's unusual to link medications by their side-effects. In summary medications can certainly include this information within their text, and this list could be included if reliably sourced within depressogenic, but I do not think that this should be a navbox. I therefore propose deletion of the template. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Side effects are not a defining trait by default. Non-specific side effects are even less so. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Created as part of a farm of templates by permablocked user David Hedlund (talk · contribs) who liked introducing new terminology. Very difficult to do any of this stuff without good references, as the association between the reaction and the agent may be more tenuous than presented here. David also created {{Dysphoriants}}, {{Euphoriants}}, {{Ketamine-related_arylcyclohexylamines}}, {{Physical dependants}} (as per his userpage but verified by me). I wonder if those should be included in the discussion. JFW | T@lk 19:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for pointing this out, I didn't realise that. I will wait for this nomination to finish, and if there's consensus here I'll then double check that these aren't being used as effective navigational aids, and nominate them for the same reason if they are not. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2020 (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:Censor text 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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia is not censored, there is no reason to have a template which only exists to censor. Although it could be useful out of articles space, it has still been misused to censor Naleksuh (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agree. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. Unacceptable comments in discussions should be left as-is unless policy requires their removal, not merely blacked out. This would have been covered under the recently repealed CSD T2. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above, its an obvious violation of a clear policy, no text in talk pages should be removed unless policy says so (e.g. personal info), and none should be censored on the article namespsace whatsoever. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 09:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a functional matter, it also contravenes Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Text, which prohibits the use of tooltips. --Bsherr (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTCENSORED. Template manages to violate multiple areas of Wikipedia policy and serves no good purpose. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete might have qualified for WP:T2 before that was removed; shouldn't be used (outside of articles, either strike or remove, but don't "censor") --DannyS712 (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2020 (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:Sensation and perception 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:Sensation and perception. Izno (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Sensation and perception with Template:Sensory system.
These are clearly the same templates; the sensation and perception template is only used once. Ping to Veritas cosmicus who created the template. The "Sensation and perception" template does have some improvements but these clearly should be the same template - the improvements can also be made on the merged template. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Template:Sensation and perception per nom. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mdaniels5757: I believe the nom was suggesting a merge to Sensory system. Please confirm your intent. --Izno (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I intended to suggest a merge to Sensation and perception, as I think that name more accurately reflects the contents. My opinion isn't particularly strong, however. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point Mdaniels5757 - I think your direction is better (that is, merging FROM sensory system IN to sensation and perception). --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2020 (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:Simple explanation diagram of a human eye section 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) 00:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template contains a single image and is unused. I propose that the template is deleted. This is in no way a comment on the quality of the image or the creator, and for clarity this nomination does not mean the image will be deleted, but just that the template which contains the image will be. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But should be used somewhere. JFW | T@lk 22:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jfdwolff just to be clear, I have proposed the template be deleted, but the image (which will have an attached caption) will remain as an image. Are you supporting keeping both the image AND the template? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tom (LT) the text in the template should be preserved, perhaps on the image page.
  • substitute and delete which will preserve the content if someone wants to use it later. also, the caption saved in the image description, so easy cut-and-paste for captioning in the future. Frietjes (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2020 (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/2020_July_20&oldid=970060943"