Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 June 29
Unused route template. Gonnym (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: has been added to appropriate article. Useddenim (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. There are several problems with this template. It is massive, and thus unusable in any article. The Airport line does not cover the full extent of its route as shown on File:TransperthRailwayMap.svg. The Morley–Ellenbrook line also does not cover the full extent of its route, which is meant to reach Perth station. The colours of each of the lines is incorrect (correct colours are shown on Module:Adjacent stations/Transperth). The size of the rail network makes this sort of template impractical and hard to read because the labels for each station have to be on either the left or right side, which results in the Ellenbrook line stations being listed in between the Joondalup line stations, for example. Steelkamp (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Massive" is subjective, not objective. And there are many route diagrams in use that are longer, wider, or both, than this one.
• The Airport lane has been corrected.
• The colours have been adjusted (within the constraints of the available icons).
• The nature of route diagram templates is that (with rare exceptions) the labels are on the sides.
• The Morley–Ellenbrook line has been repositioned separate from the Joondalup line.
All in all, this objection sounds to be mostly WP:IDL. Useddenim (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)- @Useddenim: Can you give some examples of other route diagrams that a longer or wider? It might help to see some other large routemap templates and where/how they are used. I believe that Template:Routemap is mostly used by single lines and not whole networks. Steelkamp (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Steelkamp: See Category:System rail transport templates for starters; Template:S-Bahn Zentralschweiz RDT is one. Template:Midland Main Line RDT is considerably longer. And nowhere does it say that RDTs are only for single lines. Useddenim (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Useddenim: Can you give some examples of other route diagrams that a longer or wider? It might help to see some other large routemap templates and where/how they are used. I believe that Template:Routemap is mostly used by single lines and not whole networks. Steelkamp (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Massive" is subjective, not objective. And there are many route diagrams in use that are longer, wider, or both, than this one.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Just used in a not-yet-existing station. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But for the rest I share the arguments of Steelkamp. The Banner talk 21:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox climber (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox mountaineer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Infobox climber with Template:Infobox mountaineer.
I think that Template:Infobox mountaineer could be handled by Template:Infobox climber. A lot of mountaineers do climbing and visa-versa. Infobox climber is the most important infobox (and the most detailed) and has the richest level of detail on their climbing/mountaineering career (I think infobox climber captures all of mountaineer career data. The mountaineer infobox items of "famous partnerships", "final ascent" and "retirement age" are subjective items). The main differences are around the non-climbing items that cand be just merged? Aszx5000 (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Noting also that we have been recently merging several mountaineering categories and climbing categories together such as Category:Works about climbing and mountaineering at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 26#Category:Works about mountaineering, amongst others. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)- Pinging User:Cullen328 who I have seen participate at climbing AfDs - @Cullen328, what do you think of my proposal? I have put a notice of this on at WikiProject page but no one has answered so far - are there any others who should be pinged? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Could you list the parameters that would need to be added or have different names? That would make it easier to see if these indeed have the same scope. Gonnym (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Aszx5000, I am not familiar with the details of the respective infobox parameters, but I agree that mountaineering and climbing are basically the same sport with many variations ranging from bouldering to high elevation expedition mountaineering. I think that it is counterproductive to try to separate it into two separate sports, so I am generally supportive of what you hope to accomplish. I am 72 years old and have not been an active mountaineer for about 15 years, so I am not current on recent developments in the sport. Cullen328 (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Gonnym, The disjoint of the parameter sets for these two templates appears to consist of the following:
|main_discipline=,|other_discipline=,|start_discipline,=|height=,|weight =,|start_age =,|partnerships=,|website =,|typeofclimber =,|namedroutes =,|highestredpoint=,|highestonsight=,|highestboulder=,|apeindex=,|knownfor=,|worlds =,|final_ascent=,|medaltemplates=,|updated =,|partner=,|children =,|parents=,|relatives=,|firstascents=. Further, the following parameters would have to be aliased to one another:|retirement=and|retirement_age=;|notable_ascents=and|majorascents=.That said, {{Infobox climber}} wraps {{Infobox sportsperson}}, whereas {{Infobox mountaineer}} does not appear to, so many of the mountaineer parameters not present in the climber template may actually be inherited (the family stuff for sure).Why not just wrap {{Infobox sportsperson}} with {{Infobox mountaineer}} instead of trying to realign everything here? How many articles have a problem where it's unclear which template is more appropriate for the subject? Both genuine questions for Aszx5000. Folly Mox (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)- I agree that the way {{Infobox climber}} does so is the better way. I'm leaning support this merge unless someone has any valid objections. One thing though, when the merge happens, please make sure you use the correct naming conventions for parameters (snake case) and climber uses a mix of 4 different styles. Gonnym (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Would definitely keep {{Infobox climber}} as it has lots of good objective facts when used properly (e.g. Alexander Huber, Chris Sharma, Catherine Destivelle). The issue is that {{Infobox mountaineer}} has essentially the same 'biographical' facts (i.e. personal and family info) as {{Infobox climber}}, but outside of 'notable ascents' (which is the 'major ascents' on {{Infobox climber}}), the rest of the 'career' section are either not objective facts or not really notable things in mountaineering, and should be discarded. I would be happy to help guide any merge process (I am very active in WProj Climbing). Once done, there are a few more upgrades we want to make to {{Infobox climber}} to improve its usefulness. thanks to all above. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Could you list the parameters that would need to be added or have different names? That would make it easier to see if these indeed have the same scope. Gonnym (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Template:User18 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions or incoming links. Created in 2021. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep No user template has similar or more expansive contents than this one. In particular, it is the only one that links to Special:AbuseLog and Special:Log/block. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- I just fixed the broken unnamed parameter. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Also, because it's one of the only ones able to easily cross-link a user from a Wikimedia sister project (the other is {{Userxx}}). It was created to support linking users involved in cross-wiki issues, which admittedly don't come up that often, but it a big time-saver when it does. It looks like I must have forgotten about it when the time came to use it, so ironically, this Tfd has reminded me. There are not a ton of users who are interested in or know how to deal with cross-wiki issues, so it would be helpful to keep this around for that purpose. Maybe it needs a rename, to highlight the cross-wiki nature of it, and if someone could suggest a good name for it, I'd support that. (as creator) Mathglot (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Evidently nobody cares about whatever virtues are being extolled here because this has remained unused for years. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Usbk/light (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in 2016. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I'll try to dig a bit more. I believe this template was created to allow pages to contain very large numbers of userboxes without falling over. It may on the other hand have been to deal with slightly tendentious categories. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC).
- Confirmed someone who didn't get it had removed the uses of the template. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC).
- Confirmed someone who didn't get it had removed the uses of the template. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Wrongmime (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Maintenance template that was proposed in 2010 but never adopted (or documented or categorized). It appears to be redundant to {{Rename media}}; see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EarwigBot 9, a bot task that used the latter template to tag pages with the problem described in the nominated template. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Archive.is (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Just one actual transclusion. No documentation, categories, or incoming links to explain what it is for. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't recall why I created that in December 2013, but feel free to delete it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Noinkscape (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template with just one transclusion in a discussion about its usefulness. The template no longer appears to be useful, if it ever was. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Navbox with no main article and no transclusions. The articles in this navbox belong in a category and are not connected enough to merit a navbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Uw-pgame (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
No transclusions, documentation, categories, or incoming links from discussions. Created in May 2024. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Revulsed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Navbox with only two links in the body. Not useful for navigation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Navbox only contains two blue links (not including the heading, which links to the general Cincinnati Bengals article), not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Navbox only contains two blue links (not including the heading, which links to the general Dallas Cowboys article), not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Navbox only contains one blue link (not including the heading, which links to the general Houston Texans article), not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Navbox only contains two blue links (not including the heading, which links to the general Chicago Bruisers article), not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Navbox only contains two blue links (not including the heading, which links to the general Colorado Crush article), not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Navbox only contains two blue links (not including the heading, which links to the general Oklahoma City Yard Dawgz article), not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Navbox only contains two blue links (not including the heading, which links to the general Davidson Wildcats football article), not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Navbox only contains two blue links (not including the heading, which links to the general Western Carolina Catamounts football article), not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Navbox only contains two blue links (not including the heading, which links to the general Mississippi College Choctaws football article), not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Navbox only contains two blue links (not including the heading, which links to the general Centre Colonels football article), not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Navbox only contains two blue links (not including the heading, which links to the general Williams Ephs football article), not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Navbox only contains two blue links, not enough to warrant the existence of this template for navigation purposes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete – Per discussion at Template talk:K Line (Los Angeles Metro)#Detailed diagrams, consensus was reached regarding the redundancy of this template due to its cumbersome size, difficulty in reading, especially on mobile view, and excessive amount of unimportant detail for such a short urban rail line, especially in comparison to the templates for most international mainline heavy railway lines which lack such a template. There were previously other detailed diagrams that were eventually split off from the main templates to their own subpages per discussion at Template talk:A Line (Los Angeles Metro)#Rivers due to concerns about the already growing sizes of the main templates. However, because of the reasons stated above, none of them were ever used in any external capacity and were subsequently deleted. This template was restored to its respective main template in spite of established consensus, and it'd be far more trouble restoring all the other templates as well. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -MJ (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)