Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 31

July 31Edit

Template:Great Lakes MegalopolisEdit

Propose deletion This morning, longtime editor Jhenderson777 created this template, adding it to many articles. After reading Great Lakes Megalopolis and doing some googling, I just don’t think the region is well known enough to justify a template. Most of the references in the article call it a “proposed” or “emergent” region aka WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL. The article needs a complete rewrite to comply with our quality standards; the current sources barely demonstrate it meets WP:GNG, although I’m sure some could be found. So then there is the template itself, this is clearly too broad a topic, articles are not closely related besides being U.S cities, and the region itself is too loosely defined. Nearly a third of the United States population is included here. Folks in Overland Park, Kansas are on the Great Plains and would be quite surprised to hear they live in a Great Lakes Megalopolis. I may be wrong but somewhere in my wikimemory I think a similar template has been created and deleted before, anybody else recall this? In any case, it is a well intentioned, but unnecessary addition to an already overcrowded navbox landscape. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Neutral: since I created it I am partial more on keep. Though I invite the navboxes Template:Southern California megaregion and Template: Northeast Megalopolis as deleting candidates too. They were going to be similar to this navbox when I made the style differently. So what they are like now is not the same as it was going to be. Jhenderson 777 23:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Of interest is this template prior to changes. It may make some sense in that form. Its category makes me think it is U.S. Census defined, in which case I would lean keep. I don’t know about southern California. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
If there is an US census version then fine. I just prefer the Regional Plan Association version because there is much debate on sources. Some Sources list 10 megaregions etc. At least the RPA summarizes it all. Jhenderson 777 00:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Delete As per Grey Wanderer this is random and forced content, and was spammed. — Smuckola(talk) 07:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Your reasoning makes little sense to me outside of your WP:PERNOM comment. “random”, “forced comment” and “was spammed” needs more clarification and I don’t recall the nominator saying that. Jhenderson 777 11:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep for now in a holding pattern (but switch to this style as suggested by Grey Wanderer, listing everything hither and yon might work might not) until the article itself is removed by an AfD. Not being an urban planner, or having a childhood dream of urban planning, I knew nothing about this, but took a quick look at the topic and pages, including Megalopolis (which seems to be well sourced), and it seems possible that this is a 'thing' and, if so, the template should stay in reduced form. If it isn't a thing, then the page won't hold up in AfD. Seems fair that the notability question should be decided before removing the page's principal template. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Just noting that it is similar in style like the Northeart Megalopolis one now. It wasn’t easy to arrange though. Jhenderson 777 11:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
One easily solvable problem is duplication - if a "metro" article exists (i.e. Chicago metro) then the principal city need not be listed on the templates. They can make do with the metro areas as descriptors. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I see your point. So   Done. Jhenderson 777 12:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:American Music Award for Favorite Pop/Rock AlbumEdit

I'm not sure there's a need to have such navigation boxes for every Grammy Award category (see Category:Grammy Award templates), but I see no need to further bloat articles with American Music Award navigational boxes, too. Many of these articles don't even mention winning this award. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:2019–20 Slovenian PrvaLiga tableEdit

template not needed after table moved to 2019–20 Slovenian PrvaLiga Boothy m (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - not used or needed. GiantSnowman 10:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:2020–21 Slovenian PrvaLiga tableEdit

template not needed after table moved to 2020–21 Slovenian PrvaLiga Boothy m (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - not used or needed. GiantSnowman 10:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Afc bEdit

Propose merging Template:Afc b with Template:Archive bottom.
These are both near identical templates with a very minor different phrasing. See two recent TfDs (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 24#Template:Archive bottom and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 16#Template:Archive bottom) which resulted in 6 other similar templates being merged here. Gonnym (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Might want to noinclude the TfD notice on Template:Archive bottom, it might be a bit messy on the substitutions. Previous merge requests also used noinclude (see Special:Diff/941017622). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Pinging Enterprisey who runs the AFCH script and who might have insight or thoughts here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks for the ping - will check if we use it in any of the scripts. I suspect this template could be swapped out with minimal effort, though. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support If we are going to combine all bottoms we should go all out. Of course make sure it works with AFCH though. --Trialpears (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose {{Archive bottom}} is incompatible with {{Afc-c}} and its wrappers, so we'd need to change those (see test). Could break RscprinterBot on WP:AFC/R. {{Afc b}} is already a simple wrapper for {{Afc-c|b}}, so I see no benefit in this. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Just mentioning this in case you missed what is nominated. I've nominated {{Afc b}}, not {{Afc-c}}. The only thing {{Afc b}} does is the same thing {{Archive bottom}} does. I also doubt this change would break the bot. The bot will just update to use this template instead of the other. It's a simple code change without any logic. --Gonnym (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
      @Gonnym: I understand what you've nominated. The only functional code of {{Afc b}} is the following: {{AfC-c|b}}. The text that it shows and the closing of the {{Afc-c}} top tags are not part of {{Afc b}}. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Speedy?) Merge with {{Afc-c}} subst and delete per T3. This is a hard-coded instance of Afc-c. --NYKevin 22:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Changed to subst and delete, because "merge" is a poor descriptor for what would actually happen to the template. --NYKevin 01:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:New York City Ballet repertory in briefEdit

Unused template full of links to deleted articles. BenKuykendall (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete As the Navbox has not one single link....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Anatomy navsEdit

I think that most if not all of the transclusions of this nav relate to its use in {{Human systems and organs}}. To be honest, I don't think that the information contained within this list is worth preserving - that navbox does a good job of listing relevant articles within its scope. Most anatomy articles already also link to Anatomical terminology in text, in the see also sections, as well as via infoboxes. So I think this template could just be deleted. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  • I fine either with a Delete or a convert to separate navbox for linking exclusively between the templates, per nom and per WP:XNR. --Izno (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Cerebral palsy and other paralytic syndromesEdit

Propose merging Template:Cerebral palsy and other paralytic syndromes with Template:Nervous and musculoskeletal system symptoms and signs.
Despite the name 'Cerebral palsy', this template is just ways of describing problems with movement, which can be due to lots of reasons, including upper motor neuron and lower motor neuron causes. Therefore, these templates have the same scope. I propose that they are merged and the final template is for clarity called {{Symptoms and signs related to movement}}, which is what both templates scopes are actually about. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  • I tend toward keep here. The one template is already large (really, 2nd-level subgroup?). --Izno (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:InflammationEdit

I am proposing that MOST of the content from this template is deleted (sorry, again there is no option for this on Twinkle but this venue is called 'templates for discussion').

I do not think it is helpful for anyone to list in template for every '-itis' in the body, much as we do not list every cause of death on death or every form of infection on infection. What I propose is:

  1. The content about inflammation in specific locations is moved to a list called Inflammatory conditions by location Tom (LT) (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's possible for one template to list every '-itis' in the body  . That being said, I didn't see any article/list for inflammatory conditions by type/location/etc, so I've added it to my (admittedly long and unfinished) list of to-dos. So, basically, delete, but if so, if this could be copied to my userspace (or someone's) as a reference for said article/list, I'd appreciate it. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think this one needs TFD. You have not proposed to delete the template, just some amount of its content. I do think a general template on -itis would be overwhelming for navigational purposes. --Izno (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Copy/pasted reply for editors who haven't read my replies to these comments earlier - template work is very time-consuming and I don't want to put that work in only to have an editor revert it and then require discussion; here is a good central venue and quite active, and should be renamed "Templates for deletion" if discussion requests are to be considered inappropriate. Additionally this request involves deletion of most of the template's content. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Allergic conditionsEdit

Propose merging MOVING Template:Allergic conditions and Template:Hypersensitivity and autoimmune diseases.
I want to discuss this because these two templates have the same scope. On the other hand actually, I DON'T think they should be merged, but I DO want to discuss it so that there is consensus for my planned changes.

These templates seem to do a good job of providing information. I propose that they remain separate and, to clarify the scope and formatting:

  • {{Allergic conditions}} is moved to {{Hypersensitivity disease by system}}
  • {{Hypersensitivity and autoimmune diseases}} is moved to {{Hypersensitivity disease by cause}} Tom (LT) (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This is also something that TFD doesn't really need to consider. A lot of these 'maybe not for TFD' probably should have been asked at WT:MED or similar. (I do know that there has been some chatter about using TFD as this sort of clearinghouse but as you can tell based on your post last night that can be difficult for non-experts and/or might overwhelm TFD for the actual things that must be done with an XFD concensus.) --Izno (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I think this is the most central venue to make this sort of request, as no WP 'owns' the templates and the request involves two templates. Additonal mostly copy/pasted reply for editors who haven't read my replies to these comments earlier - template work is very time-consuming and I don't want to put that work in only to have an editor revert it and then require discussion; here is a good central venue and quite active, and should be renamed "Templates for deletion" if discussion requests are to be considered inappropriate. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I think until TFD is scoped to do more than total merges and deletes that you're out of scope with these requests. I see it as a waste of time and contravention of WP:BOLD otherwise. I do think the right place to discuss domain-specific navboxes and templates where the desired result is less than a full merge/delete is either the template's talk page or the appropriate domain's WikiProject, if you do not want to waste your time implementing for fear of reversion or because you don't agree about being BOLD. I do not intend to provide further comment on the discussions I have already commented on in this batch. --Izno (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't support a merge. The autoimmune and hypersensitives template is already very large and messy Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Amousey sorry, the "Merge" was an automatically entered thing. I am actually proposing to move and rescope the templates as above. Could you please comment on that proposal? (I've clarified the initial proposal above to make this clearer) --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Cognition, perception, emotional state and behaviour symptoms and signsEdit

Propose merging Template:Cognition, perception, emotional state and behaviour symptoms and signs with Template:Disorders of consciousness.
I propose move the consciousness-related information to {{Disorders of consciousness}}, and then rename this template {{Symptoms and signs related to perception, emotion and behaviour}} for consistency with other templates in this set (see alternate proposal at this date) Tom (LT) (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Merge per nom. Rename if desired. --Izno (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose They don't seem similar. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Amousey thanks for commenting, fair enough. What about a move of the "Alteration of consciousness" section on the 'Cognition, perception, emotional state...' template to "Disorders of consciousness"? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure it needs merging with anything. - Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Listen small horizontalEdit

Unused, has obsolete syntax. Nardog (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Not entirely sure what obsolete syntax means, but delete for being unused. --Izno (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)