Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 November 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 26 November 28 >

November 27

[edit]

Module:Gallery/sandbox/cf

[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) 00:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned test from 2015. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:54, 27 November 2019 (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).

Module:Gd 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) 00:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only used in creator's sandbox. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:51, 27 November 2019 (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:Lnep and Template:Lnep/begin

[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 December 6. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:39, 6 December 2019 (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).

Sweden football standings templates

[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, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY and here in prior template discussions. Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:41, 28 November 2019 (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:2017–18 Damehåndboldligaen Winners Playoff Group 1

[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) 23:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at prior template deletion discussions. Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2019 (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:2017–18 Kosovo Women's 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) 23:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged with the parent article (with attribution) per consensus at WT:FOOTY and here in prior template discussions. Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:41, 28 November 2019 (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:Vaza Jato

[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) 22:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This template does not include different articles about the same subject. Instead, it just lists people and institutions that were somehow involved in the scandal. Therefore I judge the template innapropriate. A navbox like this has already been deleted in the portuguese Wikipedia. --Bageense(disc.) 14:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has worked extensively on all the articles about Operation Car Wash and its associated cast of thousands, and is still confused by them, I say that any organizing tools are useful. If there are specific issues that someone would like addressed I will try to address them (and btw I am not the author of this infobox). Also, I do not think we should be guided by the edits on the Portuguese wikipedia, which are frequently partisan and not notable for following the NPOV guidelines of English wikipedia. I had to propose the deletion of Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff as a BLP violation before I could get Brazilian editors to understand that the opinion of Dilma Rousseff about her impeachment is indeed notable, for example Elinruby (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: have you seen this? Elinruby (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Elinruby, Well, none of that is an argument. What's the point of such template? --Bageense(disc.) 22:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing. I find it useful, as someone who is trying to understand what is happening in Brazil. That is a statement, not an argument. The point is... well, Vaza Jato is a consequence of Operation Car Wash. But as the editors on that page correctly note, it deals specifically with government malfeasance with respect to a presidential election. No question this is notable, even apart from the journalist involved, who is himself notable. But Operation Car Wash is a more general scandal dealing with many politicians from many parties accepting bribes on many contracts, versus whether or not Lula accepted a beach house from someone. Ok. But here I am wondering if the hack of Bolsonaro is related to Vaza Jato, or is a different hack, and whether the BANCOOP case is related to Operation Car Wash or is just a different scandal with some of the same players. I am not in favor of making information harder to find. It's entirely possible that it is not a "proper" infobox. I do not do infoboxes; I am a wikignome who works with money-laundering articles, among other things. If you can mention some specific pieces of information that are needed, I will try to find them for anybody who would like to enforce the infobox code purity standards with respect to this infobox. What do you think it should be? Is there an infobox leaks? Constructive criticism is always best. I do reject the idea that we should delete this infobox because someone has already done this on the portuguese wikipedia Elinruby (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep – basically for the reasons laid out by User:Elinruby. Anything that will help organize this vast subject area, serves the purpose of laying out a complex topic to a viewer who may be far less familiar with it than a resident of Brazil, in the clearest manner possible.
It is difficult to give someone new to this topic, a sense of how big, long, complex, and immense the ongoing Operation Car Wash is in Brazil, of which Vaza Jato is one part, consisting of leaked documents calling into question the impartiality of the investigative judge in the matter. Picture Watergate on steroids, with one President impeached and removed; another, ex-President running again for office as the overwhelming favorite to win, but jailed by the opposition during the campaign, hundreds of millions of dollars of bribes, thousands of subpoenas, and tentacles stretching into eleven countries for five years, and still going on. Here at en-wiki, we've only scratched the surface.
To get a sense of the vastness of it, look at the pt-wiki article pt:Desdobramentos da Operação Lava Jato (Developments of Operation Car Wash): this is a child article in summary style to Operation Car Wash, and in turn serves as a parent article with 56 brief overview sections of the different "battles" or sub-scandals of Operation Car Wash, each one having a paragraph or two topped by a {{Main}} link pointing to a child articles about that particular battle. As an example, here's child article #26, called pt:Operação Xepa. This is an indicator of the complexity of it, and shows how far en-wiki still has to go, to fully cover the topic, as we don't have any of this yet. When we do, the template will help further in keeping it comprehensible.
In my understanding, it is the burden of the person proposing deletion to state why a template should be deleted, and to give policy-based reasons for it. Looking at the four bullets of WP:TFD#REASONS: there's no namespace violation that I can see; there's no redundancy I'm aware of; the template is currently in use and has every likelihood of being used a lot more as our treatment of Operation Car Wash expands; and finally, it does not violate WP:NPOV or WP:CIVIL or other policy. Does it look a little odd? Sure. Could it be improved? Definitely. But so can every other article in the encyclopedia, or we're all out of a job pleasurable pastime.
Looking at the reasons given in the proposal:

This template does not include different articles about the same subject.

There is no requirement for that in the policy. Which isn't to say the Template can't be improved to add some, but nevertheless, it's not a valid delete reason.

It just lists people and institutions that were somehow involved in the scandal.

That is not a valid delete reason, either.

Therefore I judge the template innapropriate.

That's all you got? Sounds like WP:IJDLI; there are no valid delete reasons given at all. Instead of arguing for deletion, why not transfer most of these comments to the Talk page of the template instead? There, they could serve as good springboards for productive discussion on how to improve the template. That is an outcome I could heartily support. Mathglot (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mathglot, Well, I am not getting into a long discussion about such a trivial template. If you guys want to keep it, then keep it.
And I'm perfectly aware of how big Lava Jato is. I'm one of the editors who edit the most about this subject in the pt.wiki --Bageense(disc.) 17:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bageense:, we have a great need of bilingual editors to improve and expand the coverage of Operation Car Wash here at en-wiki, and Brazilian topics in general. I look forward to collaborating with you on that process. I don't know if or when I'll ever get the time for it, but I'd definitely like to see Developments of Operation Car Wash created at en-wiki based on pt:Desdobramentos da Operação Lava Jato. Maybe Elinruby and other editors interested in Brazilian topics would help with that, too. Mathglot (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mathglot, Sure, I'd be glad to help. I already edit articles related to Brazil, especially about recent political events. I haven't edited much about Lava Jato though. I always thought it wasn't a very interesting topic outsite of Brazil and the few other countries involved.
Translating pt:Desdobramentos da Operação Lava Jato would certainly be quite the task. But it could be a good opportunity to practice my English. Ever since I started studying German, it seems like I've forgotten how to english. Hehe --Bageense(disc.) 21:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting you take on a translation into a foreign language (English) yourself; that truly would be a daunting task! The original translation should probably be left to native speakers if possible; I will make an attempt after the holidays if I can. But there will inevitably be difficulties for us English speakers interpreting certain idioms of Portuguese (for example, see our stumbling over Caixa dois at Talk:Operation Car Wash/Archive 1#Box two). I'm sure there will be many such cases where your help will be extremely valuable. Once an original rough draft is created, it will be easier for you to correct it, rather than translate it from scratch; but I'm grateful for your willingness to participate. If you *really* wish to take on the translation part of it, maybe we can do that together. But at this point, we're starting to digress a bit too much from the purpose of this page, so maybe we should move the discussion to a better venue. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mathglot, I was referring to the huge work necessary (the article is huge), not to the fact that I'd be translating to English. I've translated articles in the past (see here). Well I'll be watching the Draft you've created. --Bageense(disc.) 22:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I second Mathglot's invitation. I got into Operation Car Wash through Panama Papers and have done my best, but the topic is huge and I find that there are few English-language sources, mostly breaking news about this or that person being arrested, and the Portuguese-language sources tend to assume a detailed knowledge of Brazilian politics. For a start, there are many many interlanguage links on Operation Car Wash. And -- well. I will see you on the talk page if you accept the invitation. Just reading the page for accuracy would be a huge help. Don't worry about your English, I got you on that. Elinruby (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby and Bageense:, I've created a stub Draft:Developments in Operation Car Wash, mostly as a place to hang a Talk page for now. Let's continue this discussion at Draft talk:Developments in Operation Car Wash#Collaboration discussion on translation. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2019 (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:PerryStreet League

[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) 22:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

provides no navigation between existing articles Frietjes (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:24, 6 December 2019 (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:Lancashire League (football)

[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) 22:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

provides no navigation between existing articles Frietjes (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:41, 28 November 2019 (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:Ashley Edward Miller and Zack Stentz

[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) 00:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template violates WP:FILMNAV since for every film in the template, the writers are never the primary creators for any given work. The presence of the template inflates their importance over other writers sharing the writing credit, in contrast to director templates where directors are almost always the primary creators. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:56, 27 November 2019 (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:Politics of Vatican City

[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) 22:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Politics of Vatican City with Template:Vatican City sidebar.
Redundant separate overlapping, mirroring merge with a similar History of the Vatican City sidebar here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_September_15#Template:History_of_Vatican_City. PPEMES (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • So merge the Politics template into that one section of the Vatican City template named 'Politics and government'? Would you remove items from either the politics template or from the politics and government section of the Vatican City template? And look at all the nominations you've made at once, nine and counting. How many editors are going to go over each one to study and analyze the topic, and then comment on it? Too many nominations at one time, even if there is no guideline that restricts such a thing. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the idea is not to delete any content. No stress. PPEMES (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2019 (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:2013 papal conclave

[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:Papal elections and conclaves from 1061. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:2013 papal conclave with Template:Papal elections and conclaves from 1061.
Please see immediately below. PPEMES (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - without the pope links, so just the electors article is missing.
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:Papal conclave, 2005

[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:Papal elections and conclaves from 1061. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Papal conclave, 2005 with Template:Papal elections and conclaves from 1061.
Indeed these two individual conclave templates nominated contain a little bit more detailed information than the destination overview template. However, per WP:NOTFINISHED, wouldn't you say it would be possible to extend the entries in Template:Papal elections and conclaves from 1061 with the precurrent separated links for a little bit more detailed display of the most recent conclaves? PPEMES (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2019 (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:Fourteen Holy Helpers

[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 December 6. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:26, 6 December 2019 (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:In defensum castitatis

[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 December 4. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2019 (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:Canonization

[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:Catholic saints. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Canonization with Template:Catholic saints.
Any reasons not to merge? PPEMES (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess three options: in the "above" section, in the "below" section or as a general "group". PPEMES (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2019 (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:Associations of the Christian faithful

[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 December 4. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2019 (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:Catholic protection

[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 December 6. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:26, 6 December 2019 (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:Monastic glossary

[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 December 6. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:25, 6 December 2019 (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/2019_November_27&oldid=1253021425"