Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 July 17

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

July 17[edit]

Template:2019–20 South of Scotland Football League table[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) 22:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per discussion at WT:FOOTY Frietjes (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Can we have a link to the actual discussion on this. Keith D (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
sure, as far as I can tell, the discussion started here. this is mentioned in a link in the documentation. there were follow-up discussions here, here, here, ... Frietjes (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:01, 18 July 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:Zen From Mars[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) 18:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

This band's navigational template consists of nine articles: the band's, three members and five related bands that should be removed. With no notable albums or singles, there are not enough articles to justify having a navigational template and WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kingboyk (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, insufficient articles to require navbox. ♠PMC(talk) 17:51, 22 July 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:Azerbaijan Men's squad 2019 WT Taekwondo World Championship[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 per this and the prior discussion Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

same as this Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 25#Template:Iran_Men's_squad_2015_WT_Taekwondo_World_Championship Mohsen1248 (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  • delete, navbox overkill. Frietjes (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kingboyk (talk) 18:48, 17 July 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:Civic Movement – Tricolour[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:Tricolour Citizens' Movement. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Civic Movement – Tricolour with Template:Tricolour Citizens' Movement.
Completing nomination started by another editor; no opinion myself. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kingboyk (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Duplicate templates. One of the templates is also orphaned. -- Trialpears (talk) 15:51, 26 July 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:Infobox Municipality BR[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 after replacement with {{infobox settlement}}. — JJMC89(T·C) 00:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Replace and delete

Municipality of Brazil-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.

Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country".

  1. No other {{Infobox settlement}} wrapper used in Latin America
  2. Except for a minority of municipalities, Brazil uses {{Infobox settlement}}
  3. Most municipalities use {{Infobox settlement}} without the wrapper - so current usage even within the set of municipalities is inconsistent

Cf. Wikipedia:List_of_infoboxes/Geography_and_place#Place 77.13.5.176 (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Brazil place infobox usage
#1: No other {{Infobox settlement}} wrapper used in Latin America
English Wikipedia usage of place infoboxes.svg
  • green : Infobox settlement (only)
  • turquoise: 1 Infobox settlement wrapper and that having less than 10000 transclusions and optionally Infobox settlement (light 0-99, medium 100-999, dark 1000-9999 transclusions)
  • blue : >1 Infobox settlement wrapper and optionally Infobox settlement (light: 1 wrapper [>10000 transclusions], medium : 2 wrappers, dark : 3+ wrappers)
  • red : other infobox(es) (light: 1, medium : 2, dark : >2 infoboxes) and optionally Infobox settlement and wrappers

Data source: Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Geography and place#Place

  • Canada: the 10 provinces and the 3 territories use a wrapper
  • USA: the 50 US states, and the counties use a different box
  • Brazil: a minority of municipalities uses a wrapper
  • All the rest of the Americas uses Infobox settlement exclusively
#2: Except for a minority of municipalities, Brazil uses {{Infobox settlement}}

Administrative entities other than municipalites, e.g. region, state, mesoregion, microregion, subprefecture, admin. region, use Infobox settlement exclusively

Brazil place infobox usage by type
Type Infobox Example Comment
Regions of Brazil {{Infobox settlement}} North Region, Brazil
States of Brazil {{Infobox settlement}} Acre (state)
Mesoregions of Brazil {{Infobox settlement}} Central Mineira (mesoregion)
Microregions of Brazil {{Infobox settlement}} Microregion of Angicos
Subprefectures of Brazil {{Infobox settlement}} Subprefecture of Parelheiros
Administrative region (Brazil) {{Infobox settlement}} Gama, Federal District
Municipalities of Brazil (most) {{Infobox settlement}} Xapuri most use the standard template
Municipalities of Brazil (some) {{Infobox Municipality BR}} Limeira some use the 2015-10-13 created fork/wrapper
#3: Most municipalities use {{Infobox settlement}} without the wrapper - so current usage even within the set of municipalities is inconsistent
Percentage whole country
Infobox usage on articles about municipalities in Brazil

Note: Total according to ptwiki: 5570

Usage by region of Brazil
Region Qty of
mun.
(ptwiki)
Petscan Wrapper
North 450 10254025 <100 (<5%)
Northeast 1794 10254026 <100 (<5%)
Central West 466 10254024 >100 (>50%)
Southeast 1668 10254022 >100 (5-50%)
South 1191 10254023 <100 (<5%)
Usage in Central-West and Southeast
State Qty of
mun.
(ptwiki)
Petscan Wrapper
Mato Grosso do Sul 79 10262732 >50%
Goiás 246 10262729 >50%
São Paulo 645 10262730 >50%
others (MT, MG, RJ, ES) 1164 10264276 <5%
Latin America outside Brazil uses Infobox settlement exclusively. In Brazil itself most regions and states use Infobox settlement exclusively. Usage of the wrapper: in the Central-West the states Mato Grosso do Sul and Goiás, in the Southeast São Paulo.

77.13.5.176 (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC) // 78.54.12.143 (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC) // 89.14.187.12 (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Replace and delete per nom. TerraCyprus (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    File:English Wikipedia usage of place infoboxes - Municipality BR.svg - significant usage only in some states. TerraCyprus (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, see also earlier discussions on Infobox German location, Infobox French commune, Infobox Albanian settlement etc. Infobox has country-specific code, for instance automatic time zones if state is given. Markussep Talk 08:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    Warning : "automatic time zones if state is given" - this "feature" leads to misinformation, since in Brazil time offset is not determined by the state. It also does not make sense to have code to determine the time offset only available in the municipality infobox, cf. the table above. 78.55.36.165 (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please note that Markussep created that template 18:41, 13 October 2015, against established practice for Brazil, which was to use Infobox settlement / Infobox Settlement, cf. edit on Xapuri from 2008. 78.55.36.165 (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    Then he converted some pages from Infobox settlement to his new box, many in Sao Paulo (SP), e.g. 14 October 2015: Capela do Alto SP, Mairinque SP, 15 October 2015: Piracicaba SP, 19 November 2015 Limeira SP 77.191.64.110 (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Replace and delete per nom. Great idea! Good to get back unity in Brazil and to have only one template for all of Latin America. The timezone code does not work correctly anyway and this topic should be solved in Infobox settlement, not in wrappers and forks. JelgavaLV (talk) 20:10, 25 July 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:Zhavia Ward[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) 18:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:NENAN. The songs aren't even hers. --woodensuperman 15:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Minimal content for effective navigation at this time not already included in main article. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:18, 24 July 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:ICC Cricket World Cup winners[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) 18:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Not helpful for navigation. This could be accommodated somewhere else. Störm (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep: I have reason to believe that {{ICC Cricket World Cup}} would not be a suitable replacement for use in articles about the national teams. {{ICC Cricket World Cup winners}} is very similar to {{FIFA World Cup champions}}: it allows navigation between the champions without having to list everything about the tournament, of which some may be irrelevant. --Minoa (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kingboyk (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no reason to delete unless someone comes up with a better replacement. BLAIXX 18:09, 23 July 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:Images of England[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:National Heritage List for England. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Propose merging Template:Images of England with Template:National Heritage List for England.
The Images of England website is about to be retired and merged into Historic England. The ID numbers do not match so this may present a problem with any merge procedure. Cnbrb (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The images from the IoE site have not yet been transferred to the NHLE site. Some images have been added by users to some items on the NHLE site. As far as I can see each individual one will need converting as the identifiers on the 2 sites are different. [As an aside I am slowly converting bare linked and other cite templated usages of both sites to use the appropriate template so it will be easier to do any change necessary] Keith D (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - I thought it worth bringing up formally here in case anyone knows of a programmatic way of converting IoE ID numbers to NHLE numbers, and to avoid manual solution! Cnbrb (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate and replace with National Heritage List for England where possible with eventual deletion. Since the site is going down, this will eventually need to happen. It is always a good idea to have this get an "official" TfD result and kept in the Holding Cell and not forgotten and lost. --Gonnym (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment May be worth contacting HE to see if they can give a date for closure and when all the images will be available on the NHLE site. They may also be able to supply a cross reference list of IoE verses NHLE number. Keith D (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment On the latter point, it's already possible to download NHLE data, which includes the current reference and the legacy reference number used by IoE (or at least did, when I downloaded it). Obviously newly listed buildings won't have a legacy ID. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment There are problems with template expansion limit on the list pages - it may be time to revert {{NHLE}} template to not use the wrapper invocation as I expect this adds to the expansion size. Keith D (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I've emailed HE and have gotten a CSV file associating IoE refernces with their new NHLE numbers. The data was correct as of 2011, but there may have been some changes made after that. I will start a bot request to get a bot fixing this before they disable IoE in early August. -- Trialpears 18:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Here's the link to the bot request: Wikipedia:Bot requests#Images of England conversion. -- Trialpears 11:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kingboyk (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The bot is coded. Ping when ready to run. -- GreenC 15:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I guess I should actually support this as well so we can actually get a close this time and the bot can run before the website goes down. -- Trialpears (talk) 15:44, 25 July 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:Women's Football at the Pacific Games[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. Fenix down (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This template isn't needed as all of the info is already in the main football template article. HawkAussie (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC) HawkAussie (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:28, 17 July 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).