Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 November 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

November 18[edit]

Template:Infobox Hall of Fame[edit]

Only sixteen transclusions. Redundant to {{Infobox museum}} (or possibly, in some cases, {{Infobox organisation}}). The museum infobox is already used for some halls of fame. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox technology festival[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox technology festival with Template:Infobox recurring event.
Technology festivals are recurring events. None of the parameters in the technology festival infobox are unique to technology festivals. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox bus accident[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox bus accident with Template:Infobox rail accident as, say {{Infobox public transit accident}}.

Largely overlapping templates. The majority of differing parameters relate to maps which both templates should be able to use.

And what if a bus hits a train? ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Obviously we need {{Infobox grade crossing accident}} to cover that use case. Support, seems like an obvious merge candidate. "Public transit" may confuse people when it comes to freight-only incidents (it's only a name, but never mind). Mackensen (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge. Indeed most of the parameters do overlap, so a merger seems very suitable. I think there could be a struggle to come up with a fitting all-embracing name, so don't underestimate "Infobox bus or rail crash". (I believe it's the practice to avoid the word "accident".) --Bsherr (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Highly sensitive[edit]

Propose merging Template:Highly sensitive with Template:Controversial.
One might at first think these templates serve different purposes, because, after all, depending on the meaning, a controversial subject is not necessarily the same as a sensitive subject. However, Template:Highly sensitive urges neutrality, just like Template:Controversial, demonstrating that these templates are actually warning about the same thing. Even if Template:Highly sensitive were used in the other sense, to warn editors to be appreciative of others' emotions, it would probably be considered an impermissible WP:Content disclaimer. These templates should be merged, and then existing uses of Template:Highly sensitive should be evaluated to ensure it is used on controversial subjects as opposed to just sensitive ones. Bsherr (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – per nom. I created this template based on a note that I saw on Talk:September 11 attacks (diff), and so I thought that I should create a template to add to the talk pages of other articles to which the "highly sensitive" "rule" applies (such as rape, murder and pedophilia). But now looking at Bsherr's rationale, I agree that the template serves the same purpose as the Controversial template, so merging is appropriate. LinguistunEinsuno (Linguist111) 00:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Test[edit]

Obsolete, replaced with {{subst:uw-test1}}. Also the same for {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}} and {{subst:test4}}, which were replaced with {{subst:uw-test2}}, {{subst:uw-test3}} and {{subst:uw-test4}}. –User456541 14:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep per all previous TfDs. Nothing has changed - it's a different template and not obsolete. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. What's changed to justify a fresh nomination? @User456541: did you review the previous discussions prior to nominating? Mackensen (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Mackensen: I wanted to Redirect to {{subst:uw-test1}}, but Twinkle won't let me do so, so I chosen Delete as deletion type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User456541 (talkcontribs) 16:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Unless the talk page is missing a link to a more recent discussion, the last discussion was closed a year and a half ago as no consensus. Which of the WP:Speedy keep criteria does this then fall into? --Bsherr (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
      • It doesn't matter, because the nominator never even read the talk page, apparently. Redirecting a set of templates repeatedly not deleted at TfD would have been an incredibly disruptive and inappropriate action. Thankfully TWINKLE recognized that apparently, even if the nominator didn't. Mackensen (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete (redirect to appropriate UW template). Is there any more substantive argument than the template version of WP:ILIKEIT that can be offered to explain why we need these redundant user warning templates? With everything else on Wikipedia, we resolve our differences and make one version that meets consensus. Indeed, it is fundamentally inconsistent with WP:Consensus for separate versions to exist. If there is something lacking in the UW templates, can we not address it directly by changing the UW template, if there is consensus to do so? As for why now, the biggest reason to me is the poor and corrupted state of the documentation for these templates. Because these templates are substituted, we cannot know whether it's two or two hundred people using them, but it's a big red flag that apparently no one cares enough about them to properly maintain their documentation. --Bsherr (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Bsherr: I think it's argument enough to say that there are those of us who prefer the older language and for various reasons find the new language inappropriate. It's convenient to have a standard templated warning to use instead of typing it out by hand each time. I find I don't need documentation to tell me how to type {{subst:test}}; if documentation is necessary to use the newer templates then it sounds like they're much too complex. I frankly don't understand why this is a perennial concern. Who's hurt by the existence of these templates? How is this nomination helping Wikipedia get better? Mackensen (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • The need to resolve differences, achieve consensus and agree to a single version is mostly only relevant in the article namespace – and that's because we don't normally have two articles on the same topic. That's not really an issue in the template space: if there are two templates that do the same job in slighly different ways and there are groups of people who use each one, then that's fine: there's nothing wrong if there's more than one way to do something.
      These templates are substed, so we can't count transclusions, but we could at least search the user talk namespace for their exact text. It's difficult to see how many people are still using them (there are over 43,000 uses of the first one, most of them from quite a few years ago). But a quick browse came up with several uses from this year: by Bearian, TigerShark, Ixfd64 and Rms125a@hotmail.com on a few user talk pages. The number of people who've used the template this year is obviously more than four, but it's unlikely to be more than 20. – Uanfala (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Voooltdj sandbox[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. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 13:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Apparently a test edit by new user. David Biddulph (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2018 (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).
  • Speedy-deleted under criterion G2 as an editing test outside userspace. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 13:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Northeastern Huskies football navbox[edit]

NAVBOX with just three links ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep; has four blue links including the title. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • keep Just 3 or 4 links is not a good reason to delete a navbox. navbox works well to me. Hhkohh (talk) 09:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep; 3-4 links is sufficient, and there's clear potential for expansion. Mackensen (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Quad City Steamwheelers roster[edit]

Team has been defunct since 2009. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:WakeUpPresenters[edit]

Unnecessary template for a short-lived, unremarkable breakfast news television program. Only 3 linked articles within, and their involvement with this program is far from the most notable role in any of their careers. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Tnc[edit]

Yet another redundant and un-needed template created by BrandonXLF. Basic copy of {{tlx}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. The argument that this template is redundant of Template:Tlx is wrong. BrandonXLF is right that it fills a gap in the template-linking templates. There is a clear good-faith basis for this template to have been created, so I don't understand Zackmann08's claim that BrandonXLF was blocked for creating this template, nor can I find any evidence that the creation of this template was the reason he was blocked. I actually think it's very unfair that it was even mentioned here at all, since it has nothing to do with the merits of this template. All that being said, I do think the template should be deleted. Even though it does fill that hole in the table of template-linking templates, the template is not being used as of now, and I question whether there will be any need. I've personally been skeptical of {{tlx}}, which I understand exists to make it easier to click single-character-named templates, and which I think is a dubious purpose, and which I see used far more often outside the purpose for which it was intended. --Bsherr (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Conduct discussion[edit]

The RFC/U process is defunct, so this template is useless.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep and deprecate template; let it be preserved for historical reasons. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Guinean films[edit]

Created by incompetent newbie to support a bunch of non-notable stubs, all of which end up at AfD and being redirected to List of Guinean films. Softlavender (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder, I remind you for my contribution in English is the culmination of a link that I followed to create the temple Guinean films, and all that is related. I urge you to help me create a redirection to French. I am a beginner to wikimedia English, I did not want to find myself here so improved the article if Wikipedia is a collaborative project instead of deleted. Aboubacarkhoraa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most links now redirect to one single article, making this template useless. Ajf773 (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox sports draft[edit]

Propose merging the above templates all to use Template:Infobox sports draft.
Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Pls stop merging project related templates. Causes lots of work for those of us that actually take care of them. --Moxy (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@Moxy: First, I am one of those who actually take care of them and second if you don't want to do the work then don't? Your statement makes no sense "please don't propose making a change because then if people approve making the change, we will have to actually do work"? Uh..... --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox LDS Temple[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox LDS Temple with Template:Infobox religious building.
I don't see any reason for LDS temples to have their own custom box. Perhaps I'm missing something? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Please continue the discussion you started first. I'm pretty sure that this would result in unnecessary forking and duplication of data in multiple places. Please dig into how these LDS temple templates actually work and how content is reused in infoboxes, lists, and other places. I advised you last year at Template talk:Infobox LDS Temple to RTFM, and you never responded there. Why nominate the template for deletion instead of continuing the discussion that you started? – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pinging Trödel and Keizaal, who can probably explain it better than I can. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jonesey95: will be 100% honest with you, totally forgot about that conversation! In my defense, that was December of 2016... It seems like there may be a valid reason to keep this as a separate template. That being said, I think it is at least worth discussing. Thank you for pinging other parties. Obviously if there is a valid reason to keep it separate, than separate it shall remain! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Planetbox begin[edit]

Appears to me that this is redundant to {{Infobox planet}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note that he following templates would also need to be deleted/merged into {{Infobox planet}}
{{Planetbox begin}}
{{Planetbox image}}
{{Planetbox star}}
{{Planetbox star detail}}
{{Planetbox separation}}
{{Planetbox orbit}}
{{Planetbox character}}
{{Planetbox discovery}}
{{Planetbox catalog}}
{{Planetbox reference}}
{{Planetbox end}}
  • Merge and redirect – {{Infobox planet}} is clearly the superior design here, as it is more streamlined and doesn't require a heap of templates resulting in incredibly messy syntax and difficult problem solving when one or more templates go awry in any way. It should be noted that {{Infobox planet}} is already used on over 3,000 pages, too. I do have concerns over the fact that both the Planetbox series and {{Infobox planet}} share the same bloating problem. There's too much information in {{Infobox planet}} that the average reader with a casual interest in astronomy would ever need to know. The purpose of an infobox is to summarise key facts in an article. A majority of the parameters in {{Infobox planet}} will host information that will likely never appear again in the same article. This information bloating leads to an incredibly lengthy, over-detailed infobox that not only fails to serve as a short, to-the-point summary of key facts but can also break pages by overlapping multiple sections and displacing whatever images, quotes, boxes, templates, ect., are placed in prose. I can support a complete replacement of the Planetbox series, but {{Infobox planet}} is in dire need of some truncation, too. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@PhilipTerryGraham: you make some good points there. Can I suggest that we focus first on getting consensus to deprecate use of the {{planetbox begin}} series. If and when consensus is reached that that should be done, I agree that it would be beneficial to take an in-depth look at {{Infobox planet}} to see what improvements can be made. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment, {{Infobox planet}} is an already complex, widely used template. Could the nominator please make a proper assessment and tell us in what respect the proposed deletion/merge would be actually beneficial? Rfassbind – talk 00:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Rfassbind: I'm not sure I understand what you are saying? Your comment seems to support my point that {{Infobox planet}} should be used instead of the complex series of templates provided by Planetbox. What more of an assessment do you need? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. This series of templates is in use for extrasolar planets, while {{Infobox planet}} is used for planets that orbit around the sun where the star doesn't have to be mentioned. It is worrisome to see that most of the criticism is about using a series of templates. These templates are easier to use than a single template with many fields. While there may be a case for merging this series if it does not complicate the planet infobox too much, the astronomy project is comfortable with template series. Only 3 star articles use {{Infobox star}}, while 4501 use the series beginning with {{Starbox begin}}. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I know you weren't suggesting that. But as you can see above and below the series as a series was becoming a major argument for the merge. The argument should be whether or not to have separate templates for extrasolar planets and our own planetary family. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @StarryGrandma: I strongly dissagree with your assertion that a single infobox would be harder to edit. It's easier to edit a "a single template with many fields" because the syntax is a lot clearer and a lot easier to understand than an infobox made of multiple templates, where the syntax is a mess of curly brackets and template names with multiple, and often unclear, uses of opening/closing brackets that allow each and every template to function. We'd just want only the one template to worry about, please. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)