Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 3: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 125: Line 125:


==== [[Template:PD-notice]] ====
==== [[Template:PD-notice]] ====
<div class="boilerplate tfd vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).''

The result of the discussion was '''merge'''<!-- Tfd top --> to [[Template:Source-attribution]]. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 12:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
* {{Tfd links|PD-notice|module=|type=merge}}
* {{Tfd links|PD-notice|module=|type=merge}}
* {{Tfd links|Source-attribution|module=|type=merge}}
* {{Tfd links|Source-attribution|module=|type=merge}}
Line 150: Line 154:
***That's not what CITEVAR means, and I honestly I'm starting to wonder what the heck you're talking about. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 07:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
***That's not what CITEVAR means, and I honestly I'm starting to wonder what the heck you're talking about. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 07:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
****That is not what [[WP:CITEVAR]] '''ought''' mean, but, I checked and, you have only made two edits to [[Wikipedia talk:Citing sources]]. I suggest you so a search of the archives of that talk page for CITEVAR and see how minute the disputes over its interpretation is. (1) Why risk dragging these templates into that cauldron? (2) If the coding of the templates was complicated then I would be in favour of one merged one (as it is trivial to writ a wrapper), but as the code is so simple I see no need to merge {{tl|Citation-attribution}} and {{tl|Source-attribution|}} as a wrapper would involve almost as much coding as the original and the switch makes coding, usage and documentation more complicated. -- [[User:PBS|PBS]] ([[User talk:PBS|talk]]) 12:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
****That is not what [[WP:CITEVAR]] '''ought''' mean, but, I checked and, you have only made two edits to [[Wikipedia talk:Citing sources]]. I suggest you so a search of the archives of that talk page for CITEVAR and see how minute the disputes over its interpretation is. (1) Why risk dragging these templates into that cauldron? (2) If the coding of the templates was complicated then I would be in favour of one merged one (as it is trivial to writ a wrapper), but as the code is so simple I see no need to merge {{tl|Citation-attribution}} and {{tl|Source-attribution|}} as a wrapper would involve almost as much coding as the original and the switch makes coding, usage and documentation more complicated. -- [[User:PBS|PBS]] ([[User talk:PBS|talk]]) 12:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).''</div>


==== [[Template:Andrew Yang series]] ====
==== [[Template:Andrew Yang series]] ====

Revision as of 12:28, 12 October 2021

< October 2 October 4 >

October 3

AFL Player Significant Statistics Templates

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 00:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following the discussion Here (Please read this to understand the context), I have listed a large amount of templates for discussion, as I believe the statistics behind them break WP:OR I propose keeping Australian rules football statistics B, P, PB, S, SB, SP, SPB, and W, PW, SW and SPW, (representing Brownlow winners, Premiership players, Entire season statistic leaders, and combinations of those) as those statistic leaders can be found, with sources, Here (AFLTables) and Here (Footywire) for the 2021 season, going back to 1965. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as starter. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm for maintaining the H series as is. It is an important marker to highlight winners of the Coleman Medal, which only applies to goals kicked in the regular season. Deleting the H series would not allow highlighting for players such as Jack Riewoldt, who in 2012 won the Coleman but did not finish the year (after finals) with the most goals. --DustyNail (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @DustyNail I see your point, but, as I have said before, there is no source that gives us complete Home and away season statistics to use. This means including it breaks WP:OR and thus cannot be included. in the proposal of using only B/W (Brownlow, Women's B&F), P (Premiership player), S (Entire season statistic leader), and the combinations of those, Matthew Pavlich and Lance Franklin would get the highlighting for total goals (S) and Franklin would also get the S distinction for goals (average). Sure, it would be "nice" to include it, but if it breaks Wikipedia's rules then it's not really possible. Creating a new letter & template, and fitting it in to the table somehow would be possible (if you could throw out some ideas that aren't hard to integrate, that would be good), although using more letters just adds to the unwieldiness of all these templates (especially the duplication of W and B as it stands; having C (for Coleman) and G (I guess, for Women's Leading Goalkicker) would be a lot of duplication for the sake of one statistic).
    Coleman/Leading goalkicker awards are already listed in player's infoboxes, mind you. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per DiamondIIIXX above. Cassiopeia talk 23:22, 10 October 2021 (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:US military utility vehicles

Delete. Navbox that is far too big for easy navigation (it occupies two full screens of my ipad). Per WP:NAV-WITHIN a split by era was proposed and agreed to (see Template talk:US military utility vehicles#Splitting proposal) so {{WWI US Soft Vehicles}}, {{WWII US Soft Vehicles}} and {{Post-WWII US Soft Vehicles}} were created, the template creator has subsequently withdrawn their support for the split. List of utility vehicles of the United States Armed Forces, which is linked in all three new navboxes, provides all of the information about vehicle payloads and drive from this navbox in searchable columns. Cavalryman (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Navigational benefit is not here. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • POSTPONE deletion Please – 1). Creator (user GeeTeeBee) is still in ONGOING DISCUSSION about splitting this template — 2). The statement that: "..creator .. withdrew .. support for the split." IS utterly UNTRUE !!. – 3). IN July of 2020, Cavalryman proposed splitting the lengthy template in three period/era boxes. To which I directly AGREED ! — HOWEVER: Axing Most of its Navigational Structure was NEVER DISCUSSED – NOR Sound ARGUMENTATION for this PROVIDED..! – Simply splitting it would be enough to make them "wieldy" again! – 4). NAMES of US Military rigs are Notoriously CRYPTIC CODES of Just Letters & Numerals – PLUS: Contrary to cars, which almost All have just Four Wheels - US Military vehicles exist in an Almost Bewildering VARIETY of propulsion Configurations! —
5). Please FREEZE the Deletion process, until a). Ongoing discussion has run its course; and: b). after considering this navbox was created in April 2019 to fill an UTTER VOID; — c). For over FIFTEEN Months NOBODY Complained about its size, although the box was added to over 150 articles ( !! ), giving the impression that it did more good than harm  !? — d). Not until July 2020, Cavalryman contacted me, and we Agreed on splitting the existing box in a couple of eras — but that's not what he did... — After OVER a YEAR WENT BY, his new boxes are indeed wonderfully compact, and neat and tidy to look at, but about EIGHTY Percent of the navigational structure was Cut Out, as well... – Per WP:NAV-WITHIN, a nav-aid must DO MORE, than just box-up related article links, and leave it to the reader to click them, and use trial and error, to find out, what the Cryptic "XYZ-789" model‑codes mean, and how to get to the vehicles they're really interested in!? – PLUS: relegating navigational structure that fits perfectly well within the boxes - Once they have been split as intended! – but unnecessarily sending the reader to a list-article to find out, isn't the intended job of a navbox, now is it ?? —
6). After noting this Deletion Procedure has prematurely been started, I (have to?) conclude that Cavalryman has no intention to be a man of his word, and actually do what we originally agreed upon in July 2020, - namely splitting THIS box by era (without completely changing its structure!).. — So I'm now doing all that myself. – 7). But as I pointed out back in 2020,
I'm a chronic pain patient, with very low energy levels, so I can only do LITTLE, and very SLOWLY, at that... but I'll take some more oxy, and will resume the discussion this week !! – Regards,  GeeTeeBee (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: it has been split into several templates: Template:WWI US Soft Vehicles, Template:WWII US Soft Vehicles and Template:Post-WWII US Soft Vehicles. Cavalryman (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops... nvm I was under the impression it has been agreed to and hadn't entirely happened yet. This should be deleted in that case. NoahTalk 00:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by GeeTeeBee: Belated – although splitting had been agreed on Template talk:US military utility vehicles#Splitting proposal — on 19 July 2020 — the three split boxes created by Cavalryman are severely lacking in more than one way... 1). Navbox {{WWI US Soft Vehicles}} contains just eight (8) article links – so small, that it could just be a "See also" section in their articles, and thus could be nominated for deletion ! – 2). Moreover, All of Cavalryman's navboxes severely cut down the navigational structure: by a) cutting out whole categories, b) by radically cutting down the payload categories, and c) completely cutting out the navigational aid by number of wheels and drive; – 3). Cavalryman left out the interbellum, I believe; and 4). His boxes only list vehicles, based on their year of introduction – not based on their U.S. military's service life !...
With Over a YEAR passing, the Splitting Job could have been done a lot better — So I did myself what was agreed in July last year, resulting in these navboxes here.
'MY submissions, as the preferred Replacements. — Please View them and consider them with integrity:

Template:US Mil. Support Rides; WW I–WW IITemplate:US Mil. Support Rides; WW II–1990Template:US mil. Support Rides 1990–present

I hope you appreciate my efforts, done in haste ... – best regards, --GeeTeeBee (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Base 36

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) 22:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template is unused outside two userspace tests. Module:BaseConvert is available and offers clearer notation, i.e. the difference in meaning between {{#invoke:BaseConvert|36to10|234}} = 2704 and {{#invoke:BaseConvert|10to36|234}} = 6I is clear, whereas it is not obvious which of those {{Base 36|236}} corresponds to. User:GKFXtalk 18:52, 3 October 2021 (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:Hurricane Ida series

Useless navbox. There are only two links to articles here - Hurricane Ida and Hurricane Ida tornado outbreak and only two other relevant links - Category:Hurricane Ida (which isn't really useful as it simply contains the two articles already linked, plus this navbox) and c:Category:Hurricane Ida (2021). This isn't sufficient for the navigational template to be useful to readers. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was relisted for the sole reason of getting people outside the weather project involved. It is not 5-1 keep, it likely going to end as consensus to delete. NoahTalk 19:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-notice

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:Source-attribution. Izno (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:PD-notice with Template:Source-attribution.
{{Citation-attribution}} was recently nominated for deletion but there was no consensus for outright deletion. While reviewing the arguments I noticed that all three templates are essentially doing the same job, with only minor formatting, wording, and coding differences between them.

The primary difference (wording) can easily be addressed by a single parameter (e.g. |sentence=yes to make the template read "sentence" instead of "article"), and the coding of "source inside the template" or "source before the template" can easily be set up to avoid needing to change all of the templates. I'm not particularly bothered as to the final name of the merged template as I can see benefits for any one of them. Primefac (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2021 (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:Andrew Yang series

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) 16:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every article this infobox is on already has a better infobox. I would like to remove them all. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He's never been elected to any office, or even had a particularly impressive showing. Most of the entries on the table do not even mention him prominently. We don't have enough articles devoted to him to justify this sort of navigation template, nor is there any particular reason to think that such articles will suddenly appear. --Aquillion (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    His book, presidential campaign and endorsements from campaign are all linked. Mentioned prominently in 2020 Presidential primary article and 2021 NYC Mayor race article. He has a new political party and book coming out so another article, or two, is likely to be added. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this isn't an infobox, it's a navigational template. I think there's enough relevant stuff listed here for it to be worthwhile. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • neutral (leaning on delete) Note that many of the articles are not (at all) centred on Yang (Davis Polk & Wardwell, Manhattan Prep, (Democratic) Primaries, 2021 New York City mayoral election, Vilcek Prize) so the template seems to be largely promotional, trying to enlarge Yang's achievements, while he is only a one liner referece in some of those. If kept, it should be cleaned up of such articles whis are *not* part of a series *about* Yang. - Nabla (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2021 (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/2021_October_3&oldid=1049542829"