Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 August 24

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

August 24[edit]

Template:The Who rock operas[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) 14:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

This navigational sidebar has no parent topic, is not used in the band's article and navigates between four articles that are already contained in the better Template:The Who making this navigational template redundant and unnecessary. Aspects (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Weak keep - true that the parent article guideline is not met, but i can see this side navigation tool being useful for readers in addition to the MASSIVE Template:The Who which doesn't have a specific rock opera section. Mujinga (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - all links are already in the band navbox at the bottom. --Gonnym (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merging I think this template can be merged with Template: The Who. Amirhosein Izadi (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2019 (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).

Template:Pp-meta[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) 02:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The template has been deprecated for over 4 years and has 5 (unnecessary) userspace transclusions. No need to keep this template around when Module:Protection banner should be used instead. Gonnym (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting to Template:Pp might be more appropriate IMO. –Sonicwave talk 00:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete No need to redirect it. It was a meta template which is now redundant to Module:Protection banner. I don't think it's possible to redirect to a module and have it work properly and there's no reason to redirect to a template that does something else. --Trialpears (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2019 (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).

Template:Military career of Muhammad[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 "career" navbox, keep others. Merger was discussed and consensus is against it; agreement was that {{Military career of Muhammad}} should be deleted instead. Primefac (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Military career of Muhammad with Template:Muhammad2.
Seems to be space/pixels enough for destination template to include these parts of information in the "Events" section. After all the topic(s) pertain to a significant part of the carreer of subject. No clear reason to keep just this out of the main template. PPEMES (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Reasonable merger with no major size concerns. I have also added {{Campaignbox Campaigns of Muhammad}} to the TfD which is a duplicate of Military career of Muhammed but in campaignbox format. --Trialpears (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, but I believe the separate campaign box should still be retained. PPEMES (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok I don't know how campaign boxes usually are used, just thought it was redundant navigation. Remove it if you want; I probably shouldn't have hijacked your nomination in the first place. --Trialpears (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
That's fine. Better in fact also check the campaign box for missing overlap entries and then leave it as is. PPEMES (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete navbox and retain campaignbox. I'll note that we similarly don't have "military career" navboxes for other articles in this format: Special:PrefixIndex/Military career of. If y'all feel that this particular set of battles has enough in common to warrant navigation betwixt then go for the merge, but in that event, I see it being naturally deleted from that navbox eventually. (It could use some paring as it stands.) Especially if we're keeping the campaignbox, there is little need for the navbox in addition. czar 20:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete navbox and retain campaignbox. After looking at how campaingboxes are used more generally I have to agree with Czars course of action. --Trialpears (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2019 (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).

Template:Ship burial customs in Germanic paganism[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 2019 September 3. Primefac (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2019 (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).

Template:Germanic mythology[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 2019 September 3. Primefac (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2019 (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).

Template:Indigenous peoples by continent[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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Indigenous peoples by continent with Template:Ethnicity.
As a subsection called "Indigenous peoples by continent" under or within the subsection called "Groups by region". PPEMES (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Could you please explain why that would be beneficial? It seems like a rather large and full template already. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Why keep it separate? Too large I wouldn't say. Doesn't it fit into the scope for convenience? PPEMES (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
It just seems to make navigation between the Indigenous peoples articles more confusing, as its difficult to navigate such a large template, especially if the different articles are only linked under the "groups by region" subsection. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion here, but {{Indigenous peoples by continent}} is pretty small (navigates between only seven articles), so it won't drastically affect the size of the target if merged. Although some of its uses will need to be cleaned up: there's no reason why it should be used on Vedda or Innu. – Uanfala (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The groups by region needs to be improved to be a good replacement, but in the end I think this will be better. Quite a lot of uses of Indigenous peoples by continent would benefit from using the broader ethnicity template and the rest is redundant to the ethnicity template on the same page. --Trialpears (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is for basic navigation between the Indigenous peoples by X continent articles, the same as each of those continent articles have their own navbox for subarticles. Not opposed to merger into another navbox theoretically, but "Ethnicity" isn't the right one because "Indigenous people of X continent" is not an ethnic group or even necessarily an ethnic identity—the scope includes shared traits beyond ethnicity. I wouldn't even expect to find such links by continent in the Ethnicity navbox, regardless of whether this was due to be merged there. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 20:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose; Czar said what I would have, but more cogently. :-) — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 16:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well, isn't the proposed contents already there, just without the images? PPEMES (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It might make more sense to expand it into a broader "Indigenous topics" template rather than trying to merge it into an ethnicity template. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2019 (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).

Template:Peer review/header[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 to Template:Peer review/heading. No opposition. The merge direction is mainly because "heading" has more transclusions, but if it makes more sense to do it the other way I see no issue. Primefac (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Peer review/header with Template:Peer review/heading.
Two highly used templates that are baically identical. The only difference is that Peer review header include a link to User:AndyZ/peerreviewer of the 5 random current peer reviews I looked at none of them used the header template, so I suggest redirecting to {{Peer review/heading}}.

(If someone could tag the pages that would be helpful.) --Trialpears (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:36, 24 August 2019 (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).

Template:DBDecadesInCentury[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 to Template:Navseasoncats. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:DBDecadesInCentury with Template:Navseasoncats.
{{Navseasoncats}} does a better job at the same task:

  1. Navseasoncats needs no parameters
  2. Navseasoncats is centered on the current year instead of showing a whole century/millenium making it easier to use for decades/centuries close to the start or end of a century/mellenium.
  3. The DB templates has a redundant link to the century/millenium category which is already linked in the categories section.

Navseasoncats has grown to become overwhelmingly the most-used navigation tool for years, decades, seasons, etc. Standardising on Navseasoncats where possible provides readers with consistency of navigation, which is an important goal of any computer interface. Much of nomination statement stolen from BrownHairedGirl. --Trialpears (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2019 (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).

Template:2003–04 Hazfi Cup[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. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

unused after being merged with the parent article Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 26 August 2019 (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).

Template:Mike Cahill[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. czar 21:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Not enough links, fails WP:NENAN rule of thumb. -- /Alex/21 09:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:10, 24 August 2019 (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).

Template:Whitton bus map[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. czar 21:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTGUIDE and original research. Ajf773 (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2019 (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).

Template:Category scope Central America[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. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Template giving an overly specific category scope. There is no reason to specify every country leading only to unnecessary clutter that consumes readers time since they can't imedietly determine if this information is relevant or not. North and Central America only has one transclusion while South America has five. --Trialpears (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  • delete, not necessary. Frietjes (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2019 (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).