Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 1 December 3 >

December 2[edit]

Template:Help pages footer[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Help pages footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Rationale 2 & 3: the template is poorly wikilinked and {{Help pages header}} and {{Help navigation}} can do a much better job for the same purpose. Corphine (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've merged it with {{Reader help}} for now. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 22:42, 15 December 2013 (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:Préfectures of départements[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Préfectures of départements (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. NSH002 (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unused and empty. --RL0919 (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2013 (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 LDS Church[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, after merging with the article. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox LDS Church (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on two pages. Delete and use {{Infobox Christian denomination}} instead. Imagine if there were a separate infobox for all 250,000+—it would defeat the purpose of a generic infobox. Plus, putting references into templates is generally a bad idea for several reasons (e.g. the citation style in the template may not match the article itself). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - Is there an existing standard for what is required for a Christian denomination to be considered notable and/or distinct enough to have its own infobox (e.g. number of pages it would be used on)? --— Rhododendrites talk |  20:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 29#Template:Community of Christ infobox equally applies to this discussion. I'd suggest that the conversation be consolidated. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The template already uses {{Infobox Christian denomination}} by transclusion. It's not a big deal to just copy and paste the full text of the template into the main articles. I have no objection. COGDEN 02:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The issue at hand is that when thing need to be updated, which happened every year, then you have to update multiple pages. Additionally, so what? There is there a specific WP policy that say it should be this way? This is a preference delete, not a policy delete, and I see no reason to delete a template that has worked for years.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No valid reason to delete. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because it is rarely used doesn't mean it should go. Maybe contact users who edit LDS articles more often, perhaps they can make good use of the template. --Soetermans. T / C 12:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Infoboxes are used to summarise a few important facts about the article's content, and since these articles are unlikely to be identical they should not make use of the same infobox.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and User:Underlying lk (eh bien mon prince) —PC-XT+ 23:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, if you want to create a sidebar, go ahead, but this isn't it. as an infobox, it should only be transcluded on one page, and is hence redundant to the more generic denomination infobox. Frietjes (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2013 (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:Metro State Roadrunners men's basketball navbox[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Metro State Roadrunners men's basketball navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Doesn't link to anything! Completely useless for navigation. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Building pages takes time. I will eventually link seasons to the template. The template was not hard to make. You would be doing more work by deleting it, rather than letting it stay. "Rome wasn't built in a day".--JLAmidei (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CRYSTAL. Something that might happen in the future is not a valid argument for keeping a literally non-navigable template now. It takes an admin one minute to delete it, but it takes many hours creating pages to make it worth keeping (not exactly "doing more work" to delete it). Jrcla2 (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as unreadable for someone with colourblindness. Frietjes (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2013 (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:MG[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 relisted on 2013 December 16 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MG (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MG/1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 1#Template:MG
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:Periodic table (Hindi)[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Periodic table (Hindi) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Periodic table (Hindi, legend) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No need for Hindi language table in enwiki. No transclusions. DePiep (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - What about Template:Periodic table (traditional Chinese) and Template:Periodic table (simplified Chinese)? They each only have one transclusion, and could be substituted and redirected, except that would jump namespaces. Like the Hindi table, they have many links. I guess a bot may need to update the links to point to the section in the article... I don't know if the Hindi table has an article that could serve as a redirect target, if that's even necessary. No articles link to it, only templates. —PC-XT+ 05:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)—PC-XT+ 05:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The many links are through {{periodic table templates}}, which is just an overview-list in each template documentation. They will go with the template.
The Chinese is not proposed because in Chinese, each chemical element has its own character. This is U+91D1 金 CJK UNIFIED IDEOGRAPH-91D1 (CJK). I find that interesting at least, and maybe we could add these to more places. Anyway, that is why I did not added that one here in one discussion. -DePiep (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply —PC-XT+ 04:07, 4 December 2013 (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:2014–15 in European football (UEFA)[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 conensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2014–15 in European football (UEFA) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The 2013–14 season in European football is approximately 8 months away, as most leagues starts in July/August. When an article is created this early, the normal practice is to redirect to the parent article, like it is done with the 2014–15 FA Cup. Similarly, I believe it is WP:TOOSOON to create this template and that it shouldn't be recreated until the 2013–14 season article is created in April/May 2014. This template currently links to nine related articles and four of those (the 2014 season in Sweden, Finland, Norway and Faroe Islands) are already covered in the template for the current season. The 2013–14 template was nominated for deletion by me one year ago, but that discussion was closed as "no consensus" Mentoz86 (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: guess you meant to write "The 2014–15 season ...". Me too ;-) -DePiep (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It appears that there are facts, and some teams have qualified already today! Also any change in UEFA rules & money can be present as facts. Template could be in some more existing 2014–2015 articles. -DePiep (talk) 06:39, 9 December 2013 (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 NBL player[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox NBL player (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

35 transclusions, redundant to Template:Infobox basketball biography. eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - but hold off until I convert the remaining articles that are in it. Not all the fields carry over and it will be tough to find them if I can't do a link search. I was planning to nominate TfD once all the articles were moved to Infobox basketball biography. Rikster2 (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • All clear - I have moved all articles to the appropriate templates - no more transclusions for this template and it can be officially retired. Rikster2 (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2013 (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 Pro athlete[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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Pro athlete (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Three transclusions prior to replacement with Template:Infobox sportsperson. Redundant to Infobox sportsperson and Template:Infobox basketball biography. eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • redirect to sportsperson to avoid recreation. Frietjes (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2013 (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 protected area of Australia[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, seems like the first thing to do is to resolve the terminology issues in the main template, then simply replace this one with the main template, if that is feasible. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox protected area of Australia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I created a version of this template that is built on Template:Infobox protected area; from the test cases the output seems nearly identical. eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose until there is clarification as to what the nominator is actually proposing. Is the proposal to make the template a wrapper for {{Infobox protected area}} or to replace it with Infobox protected area? Or something else? If it's to replace the template with Infobox protected area, the same issues that were discussed at the April 2011 TfD still exist.[1] If the former, there's really not a lot of point. A wrapper is still a template and this one doesn't fix the problems with Infobox protected area, particularly the terminology that applies in Australia. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rewrite as a wrapper as suggested, then reconsider for substitution/deletion if that is what is being proposed. Frietjes (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This doesn't address the problems that were raised at the previous TfD. There was a partial attempt to resolve some of the issues but it ran out of steam a long time agao. The terminology problem is an important issue as the terminology used in Infobox protected area simply does not apply or is inappropriate in Australia. This is one of the reasons a separate template exists. These issues need to be addressed before any articles are converted. A much better solution is to modify Infobox protected area and then convert all articles to use it, rather than a wrapper. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:01, 11 December 2013 (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:Distinguish[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 keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Distinguish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template causes more harm then good in my opinion. Every other hatnote gives some meaningful text to the effect, "You might want [topic X] instead of [topic Y]; this page is about [topic Y]." This hatnote just says "[topic x] is something else."

Every instance of this template can (and should) be replaced with a more descriptive and useful one, such as {{for}} or {{redirect}} to explain how the current topic is possibly not the one you want, rather than just "maybe you don't want to read this".

Template is protected and so won't be tagged —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Example Aren't these pages more useful now? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - From time to time, there have been suggestions that the wording of this template should be changed. (see Template Talk:Distinguish) Replacing it with better templates may be the answer. —PC-XT+ 05:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For long the hatnotes have been applied very strictly, I remember. Often pursued by the WP:DAB community. One of the recurring arguments is/was that there should be no guidance creep, adding hatnotes for each and every far away association. That is a valid point (not per se mine). So, removing & replacing this template altogether (instead of rephrasing) introduces judgement and maybe rephrasing per current instance. That also means: numerous similar discussions (like: "why is the hatnote there at all"; "why mention mohism in maoism?") on every instance's talkpage. It is this unending argument I fear. Any idea on blanket prevention? -DePiep (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concluding a keep below. -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably Keep but I am open to changing my mind. The first use I looked at I thought I improved by changing to another hatnote template. But what about Alkane? This has {{Distinguish|Alkene|Alkyne|Alkaline}}:
Not to be confused with Alkene, Alkyne, or Alkaline.
But any "other uses" terminology would be wrong. Would we remove the hatnote? We could certainly have
{{For|other chemicals with similar names|Alkene|Alkyne|Alkaline}}:
For other chemicals with similar names, see Alkene, Alkyne, and Alkaline.
which might possibly be OK. But how would we sort out the 24,000 transclusions (is this the right number?)? Wouldn't they have to be done manually? Would it be worth it?Thincat (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think the amount of replacements a bot could do would be limited, to say the least. We could just deprecate the template, and let them be replaced naturally... —PC-XT+ 04:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, after my own comment, and Thincat's angle. The template's name explicitly says why this hatnote is there: possible confusion. Its hattext says it too, explaining the essence for the reader. Exactly this preciseness or clarity is the helpful thing for the reader. Very good. Using a more general text obscures this point or reason (for the hatnote editor too). In this I oppose the nom when they say replacement being "more descriptive and useful" -- it is less so (see the Thincat example, or this). Even worse: any "see also ..." text is a dead wrong advise to the reader. The reader should be helped by the WP:HAT #1 reason: "Am I in the right place?".
On a secondary level there these points. a. The rephrased [X], [Y] examples in the nomination here are not exact enough, there is a bit of a shift. I prefer the actual examples (and for the nom's link: no, not an improvement in maoism). b. The arguments for using this specific hatnote are quite clear and decisive. That prevents hours of discussion on individual talkpages (think of what the vague argument for "most prominent title" caused in the WP:HAT usage. Editors like you and me have pet articles, we humans tend to spread their links all over wp. So some wp build-in restriction is good). c. If it were deleted, all should be replaced indeed, irrespective of the number. The notion that a bot could not do this, says enough: there is no suitable alternative unless a bare unarticulated mentioning of links; and each such situation will be a cause for discussion. (Some background: two years ago I went through the ~75 hatnotes we then had, and I could TfD some 10 to 20 duplications. This was not one of them). -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, possibly forever. I don't see a straight delete happening, and I respect DePiep's arguments, so I'm not !voting for deprecation now, either. I'm not sure whether it will need rewording or not, but that's another issue... —PC-XT+ 10:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't think of what deprecation would solve, so I didn't mention that. -DePiep (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. In your arguments, I saw the need for a more general template to handle confusing circumstances. Deprecation would tend towards discouraging this use, which I do not wish to do. It possibly could be improved, and may sometimes be placed where more descriptive templates would work better, but that can be said of many templates that are not deleted or deprecated. It has a specific job to do, regardless. —PC-XT+ 08:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This hatnote template may need to be reworded, but I prefer to keep this specifically for commonly misused words and phrases, like Capital vs. Capitol. Again, the template is meaningful to the reader in that it can clear up possible misuse or confusion. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If anything {{distinguish2}} is probably a better alternative than {{for}} or {{redirect}}.[2][3] Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2013 (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/2013_December_2&oldid=1078573844"