Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 May 4

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< May 3
May 5 >

May 4 edit

Template:Graph classes edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Underused, incomplete template which is currently used only on two articles: Regular graph and Butterfly graph. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Could become a bloated navbox if one was to add all relevant articles under the categories of Graph theory and families. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2023 (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:Arw edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:Arrow. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Arw with Template:Arrow/core.
We have three templates that all basically do the same thing, and not even all that well from what I can tell. Most of these could probably just be replaced by → and similar (i.e. should we even have coloured arrows in article space?). Primefac (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As someone who extensively uses Template:Arrow/core, I'm not sure how good an idea it would be to merge those, especially since Template:Arw has options for different directions, and “Most of these could probably just be replaced by →” would break some legacy stuff that used {{arw|l}}, surely. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did say "and similar". Obviously we would not replace a ← with a →, we would replace it with ← (either directly as text or using {{arrow/core|left}}, which gives ← as well). Primefac (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Primefac: Perhaps Template:Arrow and Template:Arrow/core could be merged into Template:Arw with the least disruption. 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't particularly care which template is the final template, but personally speaking {{arrow}} is the most clear and obvious. I doubt most people would immediately guess what "arw" meant (which is one of the reasons why I nominated it for merging here). Plus, it's only used 8 times... Primefac (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2023 (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:Ar2 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 04:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have the same functionality of {{huge}}, i.e. make the text 180%. I am also not sure why it seems to only be used on Islamic pages, and why we need this specifically for that situation. Primefac (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2023 (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:ACC edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused for at least a decade, only currently transcluded on a handful of pages, and having chatted with someone in ACC they don't know why this still exists. "Historical" is nice but I see no reason to keep this around. Primefac (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subst the few transclusions (I'm assuming that is what is proposed) and delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2023 (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:2021–23 A-League Men combined table for AFC Champions League edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 13:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR and redundant, as combined table for 2021–22 A-League Men and 2022–23 A-League Men is not necessary to determine qualification for 2023 AFC Champions League as Melbourne City FC were Premiers in both seasons Macosal (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think it deserves its place so we can know the full determination on the qualification method for Australia's 2023-24 AFC Champions League spot. FastCube (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the change is adequately explained in one sentence in the 2023–24 AFC Champions League article, doesn't need a table calculating points for every single team when it's obvious who qualified (as they won both the seasons in question). I don't see any valid, useful mainspace uses for this combined table, as team season articles will use the one season tables instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. No reason to have a combined league table when only the combined leader is relevant and there doesn't seem to be any other purpose to this table. Nigej (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the creator of the template, I recognized that it would likely only be relevant in the shorter term, until the permutations evolved at the end of the 2022–23 A-League Men season. Its relevance now is gone, especially as Melbourne City FC became Premiers in both seasons. The relevant information is there in the Template:2021–22 A-League Men table and Template:2022–23 A-League Men table templates, including in its references. Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The person who loves reading (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2023 (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:AHM edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 13:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the surface this seems like a reasonable template - input number, get out a linked Islamic month and its name. It only has one use here though, which indicates that it is either not as useful as one would expect, or that people name the Islamic months in ways that this template does not offer (or, as a third thought, the name is convoluted and no one knows it exists). I feel like this does not offer a huge amount of help when writing an article, hence the nomination. At an absolute bare minimum the template should be renamed. Primefac (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2023 (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:Add edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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/keep. Delete "add" and replace with "new discussion" Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Add with Template:New discussion.
These two templates are nearly identical, with the only difference being that {{New discussion}} puts the message inside of an mbox. Each template is only used ~50 times so there's no clear indication whether it would make more sense to have the mbox option opt-in or opt-out, but given the low usage I don't see the need to have two templates doing essentially the same thing. Primefac (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Use mbox as default and add a switch to turn it off; use {{new discussion}} as the template name, since "add" is simply opaque -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually think {{add}} should simply be deleted per being a pretty opaque use of the word add, with any transclusions moved over to one or another of the other templates that do something similar (I've bumped into one or two before but I think I TFDd one of the others). I also think there's no real value to having two different ways to display this same kind of message, so not adding an opt-out also seems fine to me. Izno (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete add. Remove usages from non-user pages. Most pages already use {{Talk header}} which contains a link that does this anyways. There is also the default button that does that. No need for a 3rd way of starting a new disscussion in the same exact place. Gonnym (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2023 (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).

Module:Location map/data/India1 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:POV map of India. The WP:NPOV data is located at Module:Location map/data/India which should be used — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The /India one is correct one to use, the /India1 one is just trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on people's views on border disputes. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having the module on Wikipedia can easily mislead editors into thinking that they should be using this one instead of the /India one. This is then creates what I assume are unwanted disputes, such as at Talk:Prayagraj#Map of india. We are better off without it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We avoid reflecting unsubstantiated territorial claims on our maps, irrespective of the countries involved. — kashmīrī TALK 09:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment: This map and module was recently replicated by another editor on Punjabi Wikipedia: pa:ਮੌਡਿਊਲ:Location map/data/India1 — kashmīrī TALK 09:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with reservations. This map is showing India's claimed territories, as opposed to what they actually control. I think such a map could be useful and valid if it was clearly marked as such (e.g. called "Indian territorial claims"), and if the map clearly distinguished claims from actual control (different colour or something). Neither is true of this map, but maybe someone else will make one for which both is true; I'd support keeping such a hypothetical map. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2023 (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:Vital article edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2023 May 17. (non-admin closure) Aaron Liu (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2023 (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/2023_May_4&oldid=1155426203"