Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 4 March 6 >

March 5[edit]

Template:V[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).

The result of the discussion was merge, assuming there are no technical problems Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:V with Template:Navbar.
These three templates perform almost identical functions. The module that implements {{Navbar}} would need to be updated to include the H/M/W links, but that's about it. No reason to have three templates that do the same thing. I could maybe see {{v}} being converted to a wrapper, if only to avoid the necessity of |mini= being added to the 6k pages that currently transclude it. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • And yes, this nom is using <noinclude>...</noinclude> because navbar is used on 7 million pages. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Merge While it is true that these templates work very similarly traditionally they have been adopted in different ways in separate wikispaces on the project. For example Navbar has been used primarily in article space while V is most typically used in non-article space. 80.12.85.225 (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • So they work similarly, but because they're used in different places they should stay separate? That makes little to no sense. Primefac (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Add parameters to {{navbar}} for H/M/W, then make {{v}} a wrapper and substitute it. Far less than 6k pages transclude it directly, it's used in a variety of templates. (side note - I'm not sure if a handy shortcut for "move" is a good thing to have!) — Train2104 (t • c) 07:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • support merging {{view}} and {{v}}, a no brainer. as for merging with {{navbar}}, I support this in principle, so long as there are no technical issues after a discussion at template talk:navbar with proposed code changes for review before implementation. Frietjes (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merging V and View doesn't really work in terms of how the template calls work. About the only thing that could be done would be to make View dependent upon V but it would be a bit kludgey. As has been previously expressed the most logical move would be to have V (perhaps a Lua module of it) be the master template which Navbar and View would tap into. 2001:A62:101E:FC01:706D:5F17:967B:1998 (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the code for Template:View shows that it already calls Template:V so it essentially acts as a redirect which means there's no need for a merge there. That leaves potentially turning Template:Navbar into a sort of redirect by having it as well calling Template:V. 2001:A62:1025:5501:1FC:1ED:7B9E:EA7 (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
bad idea, Module:navbar is the place to merge things, far better than adding a massive overhead to template:navbar by making it a wrapper for bloated code in Template:V. Frietjes (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well Template:V could be a wrapper for Template:Navbar. Looking at its code the logic used to develop it will be broken if anything other than V is used (save perhaps Template:T) this logic will breakdown and it will just be wrong. Going through the talk archives for Navbar this popped up→ Template_talk:Navbar/Archive_1#Possible_new_Tnavbar_concept. It appears that the original creator of Navbar developed V as a potential alternative, not the other way around. 81.253.22.68 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2017 (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:Tariq Nasheed[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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. No opposition. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems unnecessary. It has only 3 links, and two of them, the book and the film Dark Medicine, are one or two line articles that should be merged with Nasheed's BLP article. It isn't even obvious that the film is notable. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:46, 5 March 2017 (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:PD-NZSection27[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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 March 15. (non-admin closure) J947 04:12, 15 March 2017 (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:TLS/SSL support history of web browsers[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).

The result of the discussion was merge with the article Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subst: and delete--only one transclusion. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This template has some really useful information in it (speaking from practical experience here!). The template documentation gives the use case: "This template is for transclusion in Transport Layer Security#Web browsers to separate edit histories, due to this table receiving the vast majority of edits to the article, making edits to the main article hard to track." I think this is acceptable and should be permitted. gbrading (ταlκ) 15:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This table is one of the most helpful in regards to varied versions and deployments of web browsers in today's connected society. This table provide immense amount of easily retrievable information for use in troubleshooting device connectivity. abitson 17:27, 3 Mar 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: I often use this table, it is hard to get these informations from browser histories 83.135.151.209 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. @Abiston and 83.135.151.209: You're misunderstanding the request. This isn't about removing the table from the rticle. It is about making directly part of the article's wikitext instead of transcluded from a template. Pppery 14:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This matrix is extremely useful containing a lot of information in one place that is difficult, if not impossible to collect viewing individual browser histories. --216.136.108.250 (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're misunderstanding the request. This isn't about removing the table from the rticle. It is about making directly part of the article's wikitext instead of transcluded from a template. Pppery 19:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOVE the data from the template to main article is fully ok for me as long the data will not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:2B9:5500:45E9:F7E3:D0C6:14E2 (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2017 (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:PD-Highsmith[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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 March 15. (non-admin closure) J947 04:12, 15 March 2017 (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:Mobile phone companies in Ukraine[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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 March 15. (non-admin closure) J947 04:12, 15 March 2017 (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:Field marshal (India)[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only two people have been given the rank of Field Marshal in India, and a template that only links those two individuals fails most of the navbox guidelines. A trout to the AFC reviewer who accepted this is in order. Primefac (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Field marshal (India) is currently a good topic nominee, and a common template is required per the GT criteria, and is required. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Field marshal (India) already is a Good Article, and there was nothing on the GA review that implied there needed to be a navbox. Primefac (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: I am not talking about the good article status, but the good topic criteria. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about point 1.C at WP:WIAFT, it says preferably using a template, not "must use template"; if there are only two Field Marshals, they can very easily be linked in a See Also section. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, may be a good article, but that doesn't mean we need a navbox for two items. Frietjes (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2017 (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:South Carolina Gamecocks women's basketball coach 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Each template only has two links. Never should have been accepted at AFC. Primefac (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 23:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:09, 6 March 2017 (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:Summit League baseball 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One link... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The template links to two independent articles but that is still not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:19, 6 March 2017 (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:Western Athletic Conference mascot 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One link... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:13, 5 March 2017 (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:I liga Top scorers[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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2017 March 15. Primefac (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2017 (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:NCAA Division I FCS independents 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One (1) link... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, but can be recreated if more articles are written. Frietjes (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2017 (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:NCAA Rowing Championships[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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One (1) link... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, but can be recreated if more articles are written. Frietjes (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2017 (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:Trine Thunder athletic director 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One (1) link... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not enough links. Don't you like the template's other entry, unknown?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:14, 7 March 2017 (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:Olivet Comets athletic director 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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two links... fails WP:EXISTING. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:42, 5 March 2017 (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:→§§ This Is A Streetway §§←[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).

The result of the discussion was speedy delete - vandalism or, at best, pointless. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-creation of previously speedied template. Not at all clear what appropriate use it could have : Noyster (talk), 11:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also recreated by likely sock of blocked user; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JordanBaumann1211. JohnInDC (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2017 (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:Infobox Christian church body[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).

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Christian church body with Template:Infobox Christian denomination.
Essentially the very same thing. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am throwing a wrench into this discussion. The template in question now called "Template:Infobox Christian denomination" was originally called "Template:Infobox religion". The original name gave folks like me the indication that it was appropriate to be used on pages about other religions and their denominations. So I and a few other editors put it on the article about the religion known as Unitarian Universalism as well the articles about its major denominations, the Unitarian Universalist Association and Canadian Unitarian Council as well as a few others. In fact it is still used on these pages. So to remedy this, I suggest we move Template:Infobox Christian denomination back to its original name Template:Infobox religion and rename Template:Infobox Christian church body to Template:Infobox Christian denomination (the more appropriate tittle), so we can have a generic religion template and an exclusively christian one. --Devin Murphy (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. They may as well both be merged into Infobox Church or the like. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Merging the two into Template:Infobox religion. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 07:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think my suggestion above was a good one, but I would also be more then happy, if merging is the consensus, to Support Pankaj Jain's suggestion of "Merging the two into Template:Infobox religion". --Devin Murphy (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose original nomination, support Devin Murphy's proposal. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge under whatever name is agreed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Merging the two into Template:Infobox religion.--80.182.95.111 (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • support merge as {{infobox religion}}. Frietjes (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposed merger of the smaller template into the larger; would like to see some of the parameters from the smaller template kept in the larger. Comment: We moved "Template:Infobox religion" to "Template:Infobox Christian denomination" a few years ago because the parameters use almost exclusively Christian terminology; there was also concern that "Catholic Church" or other Christian bodies is not a "Religion" - "Christianity" is the religion (not an argument I found compelling). If "infobox religion" is created, I would like to see it as a super template, and Infobox:Christian denomination be a wrapper for that template. Appropriate wrappers could then be created for denominations within other religions, etc. --Zfish118⋉talk 03:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2: Perhaps "template:Infobox religious body" Withdrawn. Would accept either merge as "Infobox:Christian denomination" or "Infobox:Religion". "Religious body" or "Religious denomination" would only add extra verbiage, but little added clarity. --Zfish118⋉talk 19:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If so, I would argue better "Infobox religious denomination". Either way, the name of the future merged template should suitably be the subject of another, separate discussion after merge. Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2017 (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:Mississippi RiverKings roster[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. All substantive content was removed[1] in 2011. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:06, 5 March 2017 (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:Infobox French political party[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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Template:Infobox political party; merely uses dated syntax. Mélencron (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2017 (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/2017_March_5&oldid=1146661689"