Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 January 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mamyles (talk | contribs) at 23:16, 8 February 2018 (→‎Template:Education in the Isle of Man: Merge). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< January 26 January 28 >

January 27

Template:Education in the Isle of Man

Propose merging Template:Education in the Isle of Man with Template:Isle of Man.
I have nominated for Education in the Isle of Man template to be merged into Isle of Man template. I believe this would work well and the schools listed under the headings: Primary, Secondary, Independent, Further and higher should become a subgroup of Education in the Isle of Man template. The result would look like this:

What do you think? Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The size of the merged template is reasonable, but merging them without losing content would result in {{Isle of Man}} having a significant overemphasis on education. A general template for a jurisdiction ought only to list general articles (e.g. "History of place", "Religion in place", "Education in place") and important individual entries, like major towns or important historical figures; the only way it should link to everything of a certain class is if those articles are all critical to the topic, such as the sheadings and parishes here. Education is a good general article to link, and I could understand an argument for linking the most important school (if there is one) from the main template, but The Buchan School and Bunscoill Ghaelgagh are not critical to the topic of the Isle of Man. By the way, why was I notified? No complaint; I'm just confused. I've never edited the template, and as far as I know, I've never seen the template before. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: Fair point, I just thought because at present the Education in the Isle of Man template is small, and it would look nice if it appeared as a subgroup of Education within the main Isle of Man template. At present, the Education has three links; a link to a list of schools, Education in the Isle of Man template and University College Isle of Man. But having second thoughts now, think I may get an administrator to withdraw this or wait 7 days to pass for it to be closed. I notified you because you were the creator of the Isle of Man template and the TFD says I would need to notify the creator of the target template, if proposing a merger. You created it all the way back in 2007 haha Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, I didn't realise that it asked you to notify the creator of the target template; I thought you notified me because you thought I had something to do with the education template. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like template consolidation. Isle of Man is a small place so a single template is for the best. User:Nyttend, I think if all the schools are on the same line (no subdivisions) education won't be emphasized too strongly. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's impossible; there are too many of them to fit on one line. Unless you mean a single code group, e.g. making |group7= be "Schools" and listing them all there? Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I meant a single code group, "Education" - Alternatively it can be subdivided with one for primary and secondary schools and the other for "other" (universities and public libraries) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@WhisperToMe: @Nyttend: I like template consolidation too - I agree with you WhisperToMe, think it would be best to remove the Primary, Secondary, Independent, Further and higher headings and just have these schools listed together next to the Education heading, that way it would fall in line with the rest of the template. This should reduce the overemphasis on education. The Education text itself links to Education in the Isle of Man article which has a link to the list of schools. These schools currently listed are the only schools in the Isle of Man that have their own article and the current template is too small. I think it would be better in the main Isle of Man template. What do you think? Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I agree that it would look best without having multiple lines for education. Just combine them into one line of the overarching template. Mamyles (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cyber Girl of the Year

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template no longer useful as the associated articles are non notable and the article for cyber girl of the year has been deleted Spartaz Humbug! 10:09, 27 January 2018 (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:Conflicts in Saudi Arabia detailed map

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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. No opposition. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. This is a war map template. However, there is no war in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is involved in Yemen conflict, and there are some skirmishes on the border with Yemen. However, this does not warrant a war map for Saudi Arabia (there is already a war map for Yemen). The Saudi Arabia template should have never been created. Also, the template is fully unsourced. Moreover, many people might put time and effort into a useless and unused template. In any case, I have the code saved on my computer if there is ever a war in Saudi Arabia and we need to re-create this template. I want to note that I am also nominating the associated module for deletion as well: Module:Conflicts in Saudi Arabia detailed map. Tradediatalk 20:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2018 (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:Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele

A bit of a confusing navbox this one. Most of the content is related to Peele only, without Key. But with only four entries, it's not really necessary. Would suggest that in the future, separate navboxes could be created when the body of work is greater. --woodensuperman 15:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repurpose to just Peele. Per WP:PERFNAV, the navbox should focus only on works authored and not appearances, which is the nature of Key's relation to almost all of the navbox's elements. The current navbox scope would make more sense if the two had co-created multiple works. czar 18:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Soft Wikidata redirect

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing double of {{Soft redirect}} and/or {{Wikidata redirect}}. Also, started 18 January 2018, in the middle of a discussion where zero (!) out of ten participants voiced support for this option. There is no need to create this template to illustrate the proposed principle: that can be done with {{Soft redirect}}. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not have a strong opinion whether it should be used like it is currently used (I personally never use soft redirects and oppose their usage in principle), but I object deletion on the ground that the same thing can be done with {{Soft redirect}}. We have a lot of templates which do the same things which can be done with other templates; this is a question of usability - typing less saves time, and time is precious, at least for some of us.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This does not seem to be "typing less". @Ymblanter: can you demonstrate any "typing less" would be the result of this template having a longer name than the one that can be used for the same without the one with the longer name existing? Thks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right, I have overlooked this. Then I would say "delete" provided {{Soft redirect}} can effortlessly (without a need of typing much) would produce the same result (writing "soft redirect to Wikidata" rather than "soft redirect").--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- appears to be a more longwinded duplication of an already-existing template. And consensus over at the RfC is pretty strongly against this as an option. Reyk YO! 07:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Francis Schonken again gaming the system by deleting options that he disfavors from an open RFC. The option was added after 90% of the debate had already taken place. This would allow all Wikidata links to be found in one easy search. --RAN (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- We should not be encouraging readers to go to the unreliable wikidata. The use of redirect is just a way of circumventing wikipdia's notability guidelines.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and per Rusfl0. Yilloslime TC 20:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more opinions on the suitability of the template itself. In other words, is the template doing what it should? Is it the most efficient way of doing it? Are there other/better options? This is not a debate about whether we should link to Wikidata, but how it's being done.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment@Primefac:- keeping this template is an endorsement of linking to wikipedia with the body of an article, something that should not be done. By doing so we are giving the reader the impression that this is reliable information.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That debate is happening elsewhere. As I have already stated, this TFD is to discuss this template, and whether or not it should be used on Wikipedia for its intended purpose. Right now half the discussion is simply "we don't like Wikidata so this we don't like this template". Primefac (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (by OP) – still, an unnecessary and confusing double of {{Soft redirect}} and {{Wikidata redirect}}. A template being confusing and doing nothing that can't be done with existing templates is imho a valid reason for deletion, irrespective of discussion going on elsewhere about other aspects. If there were only one template with which this one is confusing, it should not necessarily be the object of an AfD discussion: a merge and redirect could be operated without further ado. As there are two different templates ({{Soft redirect}} and {{Wikidata redirect}}), redirecting to either of them would be confusing, so it remains best to delete this template to avoid further confusion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have {{Soft redirect}} to cover that (anyway sporadic) use. Any advantage of being able to find the WikiData soft redirects is removed because people would use {{Soft redirect}} anyway (or just directly (wiki-)link without template). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mostly as per Dirk. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A discussion at RFD for one page that was soft-redirected to Wikidata ended in deletion, based on the rationale that such soft redirects to Wikidata aren't desired here. There is no value to a template whose purpose is to create such undesirable pages. Based on the outcome of that one discussion, I've initiated another discussion for the other such pages that Richard Arthur Norton created, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 1#Cyrus Bervick Durand. Largoplazo (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2018 (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/2018_January_27&oldid=824699950"