Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 27
November 27
[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. (non-admin closure) Nihlus 00:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Unused template. This is so poorly maintained that five of the thirteen people here are actually now wrong, but even just correcting them isn't actually worth it. It's existed for a year and a half now without ever actually being added to even one person, and it's not really a criterion on which people need a navbox that links them together -- there's no transprovincial reason why Charles Sousa's and Michael Miltenberger's and Kevin Doherty's articles would need to interlink to each other at all, other than "but the premiers have one". But the premiers actually collaborate across provincial/territorial lines on matters of national import, which the finance ministers largely don't, and their navbox also includes Justin Trudeau, whereas this one is deemed provincial/territorial only and doesn't include Bill Morneau. And since provincial cabinet shuffles happen fairly frequently (as witness the fact that five entries here have changed in the past eighteen months), it would be difficult to ensure that it actually stayed up to date every time there was a change. And even if consensus were to favour keeping it, it would still need to be renamed to make its Canadian-specific context clearer since Canada is not the only place in the world with finance ministers. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- delete, not needed and out-of-date. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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) 03:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
there are many parties named Popular Socialist Party, so this should never be used to avoid confusion. Frietjes (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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) Babymissfortune 01:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Px (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
this template was useful before we had Module:InfoboxImage, but now it's unused and redundant to the px suffixing features in that module. if you really need this feature you can use {{ifnumber|{{{1}}}}|{{{1}}}px|{{{1}}}}} Frietjes (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- 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).
- 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 Wrong Forum. Review of a past deletion belongs at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Or, if you're creating a different template at the name instead of undeleting/recreating the old one, discuss it on the appropriate talk page elsewhere. TFD is not the place. Anomie⚔ 14:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Propose respawning Template:Infobox personal name
I would propose respawning Template:Infobox personal name despite previous deletion decision, now that we have both Template:Infobox surname and most importantly also language-specific Template:Infobox Arabic name. A secondary option would be renaming Template:Infobox surname to Template:Infobox personal name, with variable indicated whether employed as personal name, surname, or both. Perhaps also while even merging Template:Infobox Arabic name with this. Tricky this, but I believe it would benefit to sort this out a litte bit further. Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- How about Template:Infobox given name? – Uanfala 14:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- as Uanfala has indicated, we already haveTemplate:Infobox given name, so you could redirect Template:Infobox personal name there. if you are asking for a unified name template for both given and family names, then you would call it
{{Infobox name}}. merging, {{infobox name module}} and {{infobox Arabic name}} and {{infobox Korean name}} and {{infobox family name}} and {{infobox given name}} and {{infobox East Asian name}} and {{infobox Algerian names}} and {{infobox Chinese}} and {{infobox Vietnamese}} ... would be huge undertaking. Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, didn't know about that template. Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Just a side note that Template:Infobox personal name should not redirect to Template:Infobox given name: although the two terms can be interchangeable in everyday language, there are relevant fields (e.g. library science) where "personal name" is the term for any name of a person and includes given names, surnames and what not. – Uanfala 21:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- 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).