Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 26 December 28 >

December 27[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/releasing trick of ip adress from computer[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as T3 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/releasing trick of ip adress from computer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

DYK for non-existent page? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Yahoo directory[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G6 by Mackensen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yahoo directory (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Yahoo directory no longer exists and all uses of this template have been nuked with AWB. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:20, 27 December 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox PAhistoric[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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox PAhistoric (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox NRHP}}, of which it is a fork; or for non-NRHP uses, to {{Infobox building}} (as this sample replacement shows), or to {{Infobox church}} (example), etc. Only 95 transclusions. We neither have nor need comparable templates for other US states, nor for other places. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, no parameter mapping provided by nom so incorrect proposal. -DePiep (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No parameter mapping is required. Once again, you're inventing rules on the fly. You have nothing to say about the merits or otherwise of the proposal; and no arguments as to why this little-used, redundant template is needed. Your objection (one of several such made within the space of a few minutes; and like many you have made previously) appears vexatious. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • A good proposal would contain an overview of parameter & content overlapping/discrepancies, and how to deal with them. Given that good-into-professional coding practice & basics exist, I do not understand what you mean by 'inventing rules on the fly'. Please explain. But if that is a semi-veiled dismission, as it can be read, then do not bother to reply. -DePiep (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant to Infobox NRHP. Definitely a content fork. There are 95 transclusions, I would recommend that the appropriate infobox for those non-NHRP sites is {{Infobox historic site}}. Any specific parameters could be incorporated into that infobox. Montanabw(talk) 20:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • How or why do you assume that all parameters would map 1:1 OK in a redirect? -DePiep (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that because your proposal is incomplete. On top of that, you concluding "wrongly" is thin air in a vacuum . -DePiep (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My understanding is that this fork was created as a result of this 2010 discussion on WT:HSITES. A request was made to add the designations of various Pennsylvania state historical markers on {{Designation}}. However, objections were raised by Historic Sites WikiProject members: the Pennsylvania historical markers also recognize other things like significant people (e.g Dwight D. Eisenhower and Henry J. Heinz) and other things that are not building or structures, and thus those HSITES members basically said that they were "beyond the scope of how they wanted to narrowly define what a 'historic site' is". This 2010 discussion was also mentioned on the last TFD discussion back in April which resulted in no consensus. Technically, it should be rather straightforward to replace {{Infobox PAhistoric}} with either {{Infobox NRHP}} or {{Infobox historic site}}, and add the required designations to {{Designation}}. I should also note that National Treasures of Japan, added to {{Designation}} several years ago, also includes "fine arts and crafts" that are not buildings or structures. My hope is that consensus here on TFD should override any local consensus made on a WikiProject that was made four years ago. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • How or why do you assume that all parameters would map 1:1 OK in a redirect? -DePiep (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure how there is this misunderstanding that the technical aspects of merging or replacing need to be discussed in a TFD discussion. As far as I know, this is not a requirement listed on either WP:TFD#REASONS, WP:TFD#Discussion, or WP:DELETE. Once a discussion is closed and the decision is made to replace or merge, it is listed in the holding cell, where a more technically-minded admin or template editor can make the replacements or deletions. If there are not exactly 1:1 matches, new and/or alias parameters can be added to the merged template. I make alias parameters all the time.[1] Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Categorically False that this is a straightforward merge to NRHP template if almost all uses of this template aren't on the NRHP.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - A legitimate infobox with Pennsylvania-specific content. Not redundant {{Infobox NRHP}}, because these articles aren't on the NRHP. Much material would be lost with a merging. The matter was previously discussed and kept at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 April 21#Template:Infobox PAhistoric. Note that this template was created as the result of a 2010 discussion at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitessaving list of uses.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GrapedApe: Did you read the nomination, which shows that the template is redundant to {{Infobox NRHP}} and to other templates for other types of historic properties? Nor is this a merger proosal; so what material do you allege would be lost? Note that the previous discussion resulted not in "keep", but in "keep for now. [but] continue the discussion". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note With all due respect, Zzyzx11 (talk · contribs) (an administrator who has !voted delete in this discussion) has been unilaterally removing this template from article. I feel that such an action is inappropriate during the pendency of this discussion, especially by a discussion participants. I did raise this issue on Zzyzx11's talk page--GrapedApe (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies, I honestly did not realize this was still open. Per WP:TFDAI, if a discussion is more than seven days old it should be removed and closed; if it needs to be re-listed, that takes another seven days -- that should have been 14 days. So this discussion apparently has been open for almost a month. I have not closed TFD discussions in several years, so I'm surprised by the large backlog here. Therefore, I thought I could experiment with adding the PA designations to {{designation}}, and experimenting with {{infobox historic site}} by only changing two parameters,[2] and checking to make sure all material remained intact (also note that changing an article's infobox from one template to another is a totally different issue e.g. editors using to use {{geobox}} instead of {{infobox settlement}}). Again, apologies for my oversight. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry to jump the gun and assume things. My bad. Fair point about the duration of this discussion. --GrapedApe (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Infobox NRHP is only for NRHP sites, the general infobox for historic sites is only for historic sites, the general infobox for churches is only for churches, etc., while this is meant to embrace a wider range of topics that aren't themselves historic sites. It's supposed to be used for anything that's commemorated by a historical marker, and none of the aforementioned infoboxes can embrace Howard Zahniser, Braddock Road (Braddock expedition), Bucknell University, and New Geneva Glass Works. Forcing the historic sites project to misuse an infobox is most definitely inappropriate and not at all something that TFD's made for. The only needed big improvement is actually adding the infobox to relevant places, since it doesn't seem to have gotten extensive use yet. Nyttend (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no requirement to have a single infobox which can cater for all such articles, when other infoboxes can do separately. Zahniser is person not a monument; we have an infobox for roads; the university article is already using the university infobox; and we have {{Infobox factory}}. Furthermore, none of those four articles are using {{Infobox PAhistoric}}. This has nothing to do with a particular WikiProject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • By that logic, we might as well just use {{Infobox}} on everything. Your comment on Zahniser demonstrates your unawareness of this template's purpose: it's meant for anything, not just monuments. Don't attempt to force us to use multiple infoboxes when we already have one that works: merging infoboxes is good in cases of redundancy, but when one serves a unique purpose, getting rid of it is harmful. It needs to be applied to Zahniser, Braddock Road, Bucknell U, and New Geneva, but there's not much point when it's still at TFD. Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_27&oldid=1076218281"