Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 30 August 1 >

July 31[edit]

Template:Great Lakes Megalopolis[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. In reading the discussion, OTHERSTUFF was actually used reasonably here; there are similar templates that should be considered, as not having this template would leave it the "odd one out" so to speak.The reasons for deletion for this template hold for the others, but so do the reasons for keeping. There is NPASR, but I feel like the discussion would be more productive discussing the entire family of megalopolis templates. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion This morning, longtime editor Jhenderson777 created this template, adding it to many articles. After reading Great Lakes Megalopolis and doing some googling, I just don’t think the region is well known enough to justify a template. Most of the references in the article call it a “proposed” or “emergent” region aka WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL. The article needs a complete rewrite to comply with our quality standards; the current sources barely demonstrate it meets WP:GNG, although I’m sure some could be found. So then there is the template itself, this is clearly too broad a topic, articles are not closely related besides being U.S cities, and the region itself is too loosely defined. Nearly a third of the United States population is included here. Folks in Overland Park, Kansas are on the Great Plains and would be quite surprised to hear they live in a Great Lakes Megalopolis. I may be wrong but somewhere in my wikimemory I think a similar template has been created and deleted before, anybody else recall this? In any case, it is a well intentioned, but unnecessary addition to an already overcrowded navbox landscape. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: since I created it I am partial more on keep. Though I invite the navboxes Template:Southern California megaregion and Template: Northeast Megalopolis as deleting candidates too. They were going to be similar to this navbox when I made the style differently. So what they are like now is not the same as it was going to be. Jhenderson 777 23:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of interest is this template prior to changes. It may make some sense in that form. Its category makes me think it is U.S. Census defined, in which case I would lean keep. I don’t know about southern California. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there is an US census version then fine. I just prefer the Regional Plan Association version because there is much debate on sources. Some Sources list 10 megaregions etc. At least the RPA summarizes it all. Jhenderson 777 00:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Grey Wanderer this is random and forced content, and was spammed. — Smuckola(talk) 07:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning makes little sense to me outside of your WP:PERNOM comment. “random”, “forced comment” and “was spammed” needs more clarification and I don’t recall the nominator saying that. Jhenderson 777 11:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for now in a holding pattern (but switch to this style as suggested by Grey Wanderer, listing everything hither and yon might work might not) until the article itself is removed by an AfD. Not being an urban planner, or having a childhood dream of urban planning, I knew nothing about this, but took a quick look at the topic and pages, including Megalopolis (which seems to be well sourced), and it seems possible that this is a 'thing' and, if so, the template should stay in reduced form. If it isn't a thing, then the page won't hold up in AfD. Seems fair that the notability question should be decided before removing the page's principal template. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that it is similar in style like the Northeart Megalopolis one now. It wasn’t easy to arrange though. Jhenderson 777 11:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One easily solvable problem is duplication - if a "metro" article exists (i.e. Chicago metro) then the principal city need not be listed on the templates. They can make do with the metro areas as descriptors. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. So  Done. Jhenderson 777 12:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change to definite Keep now. The template makes it clear that it is based on a source widely talked on Megalopolis, Megaregions of the United States, and every other region of the United States that has its own article. If one worries there can to be too many navbxes, I should note there is only eleven around the country and the biggest megaregions are done. For example: I did a project on the next most populated Texas Triangle megaregion and it is quite small. Note that the Regional Plan Association to the RPA is also a notable company apparently. My only issue of these navboxes is it maybe can be accused of copyright but I doubt it. Jhenderson 777 17:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also the circles of the image tell us what metropolitan areas should be featured. Sources like United States Census and Rand McNally tell you the main city of the urban area. (F.E. United States Census says Virginia Beach while Rand McNally says Norfolk...so both should be added; same with Miami / Fort Lauderdale both featured in Grand McNally...so add both I feel). So those should not be an issue either. The cities linked by the respectful OP are gone as they are suburban cities. Jhenderson 777 18:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not discounting the significance of the subject, but there are issues with WP:NAVBOX provisions: "The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article" and "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent." I just don't think there is a likelihood for navigating between all of these supposed constituents of these megaregions, especially when there is little to no mention of this concept in most of the articles. And I recognize that the holding of this discussion ought to be applied to the other megaregion templates for consistency. --Bsherr (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • “I just don't think there is a likelihood for navigating between all of these supposed constituents of these megaregions, especially when there is little to no mention of this concept in most of the articles.“
Um clearly you haven’t payed enough attention to the articles enough. Maybe it’s not all all of them but just about the majority of them that talk about it. Jhenderson 777 17:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jhenderson777: how are you determining which metro areas belong in this navbox, and how they fall into each of the four groups that you have? For example, I see that Syracuse is listed as a surrounding city/metro, but the map from the 2006 RPA report (America 2050), which is used in the article and in your navbox, shows that Syracuse is NOT part of the megaregion. Curious if there is another source, which includes this breakdown. Vmanjr (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vmanjr:. Good eye as I hardly noticed that. That image is the determination. So feel free to remove \ add what needs to be on there. Jhenderson 777 18:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jhenderson777: Thanks. What about the four categories (Great Lakes region, surrounding cities, cities of states south of region, other) - how are you determining which city/metro falls into each? Vmanjr (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vmanjr: The first section is the ones within the Great Lakes Region. ← See article for prose. The navbox also notes that the source doesn't count the Canadian Capital Region (Ottawa \ Gatineau) which I admit is odd. The surrounding cities are just the ones in the state of the region but of the cities that don't border the Great Lakes into that region within the source. The third is the most controversial as most Missourians and Kentuckians etc. would disagree with being involved with the actual Great Lakes but (as I noted before) this is based on a source. The source the divisions is the World itself as they are further south lol. Jhenderson 777 19:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC),[reply]
The last one is just honorable mentions of bigger metropolitan regions that have articles that encompass the smaller ones in the source of or is a smaller area (f.e. Metro South). The areas are shaded in Orange anyway. (Besides all of the Quebec City \ Windsor Corridor which is only half of that megaregion.) Basically it's a see also link. Jhenderson 777 19:36, 8 August 2020 (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:American Music Award for Favorite Pop/Rock Album[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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as a "soft deletion". Editors can request the template's undeletion. Izno (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's a need to have such navigation boxes for every Grammy Award category (see Category:Grammy Award templates), but I see no need to further bloat articles with American Music Award navigational boxes, too. Many of these articles don't even mention winning this award. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2020 (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:2019–20 Slovenian PrvaLiga 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. Izno (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

template not needed after table moved to 2019–20 Slovenian PrvaLiga Boothy m (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:20, 1 August 2020 (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:2020–21 Slovenian PrvaLiga 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. Izno (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

template not needed after table moved to 2020–21 Slovenian PrvaLiga Boothy m (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:20, 1 August 2020 (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:Afc b[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) 22:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Afc b with Template:Archive bottom.
These are both near identical templates with a very minor different phrasing. See two recent TfDs (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 January 24#Template:Archive bottom and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 16#Template:Archive bottom) which resulted in 6 other similar templates being merged here. Gonnym (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Might want to noinclude the TfD notice on Template:Archive bottom, it might be a bit messy on the substitutions. Previous merge requests also used noinclude (see Special:Diff/941017622). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Enterprisey who runs the AFCH script and who might have insight or thoughts here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping - will check if we use it in any of the scripts. I suspect this template could be swapped out with minimal effort, though. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If we are going to combine all bottoms we should go all out. Of course make sure it works with AFCH though. --Trialpears (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose {{Archive bottom}} is incompatible with {{Afc-c}} and its wrappers, so we'd need to change those (see test). Could break RscprinterBot on WP:AFC/R. {{Afc b}} is already a simple wrapper for {{Afc-c|b}}, so I see no benefit in this. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just mentioning this in case you missed what is nominated. I've nominated {{Afc b}}, not {{Afc-c}}. The only thing {{Afc b}} does is the same thing {{Archive bottom}} does. I also doubt this change would break the bot. The bot will just update to use this template instead of the other. It's a simple code change without any logic. --Gonnym (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Gonnym: I understand what you've nominated. The only functional code of {{Afc b}} is the following: {{AfC-c|b}}. The text that it shows and the closing of the {{Afc-c}} top tags are not part of {{Afc b}}. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Speedy?) Merge with {{Afc-c}} subst and delete per T3. This is a hard-coded instance of Afc-c. --NYKevin 22:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to subst and delete, because "merge" is a poor descriptor for what would actually happen to the template. --NYKevin 01:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I did not initially tag this template for T3 because I assumed the TfD would close first. Since that no longer appears likely, I have now tagged it. --NYKevin 18:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Primefac: In this edit, you claim that this template is not eligible for CSD because it is "already at TfD." Can you please cite the specific policy or guideline which states that TfD takes precedence over CSD? This is the first I'm hearing of that, but I've been away from deletion discussions for some time, so it's possible things have changed since I last frequented this place, so I would like to inform myself of the new policy. --NYKevin 22:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The opening line of WP:CSD says The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion... This page is at a deletion discussion, there is a reasonable amount of opposition, and this means is not a page with no practical chance of surviving discussion (to continue quoting the next paragraph). If it were a straight-up delete the discussion would have closed already. If it were a keep, then T3 would be invalid because it had a chance at surviving. Primefac (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reaffirm my above opposition to merging with {{archive bottom}}: there is no unique functional code in {{Afc b}}. Weaker oppose to deleting as a hard-coded instance a la WP:CSD#T3: it's harmless, part of a series, and the equivalent of a redirect. I also note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: see Template:AfC-c/doc#Alternative forms. —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Gonnym, I've been trying to stay out of this to remain impartial, but after having looked at the actual code I do not think we can simply merge (or redirect) this template to {{archive bottom}}; the {{AfC-c}} family uses <td> pairs, of which {{Afc b}} gives the </td>. If we follow throw with this merger/redirect, the entire template family will be broken. I understand the interest in minimizing the number of pretty-much-identical templates in this field, but I think this should be viewed as a one-off exception, per Mdaniels' comment above that it is part of an integrated family of templates that would be difficult to break up. Primefac (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)[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:New York City Ballet repertory in brief[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) TheTVExpert (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template full of links to deleted articles. BenKuykendall (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As the Navbox has not one single link....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:57, 1 August 2020 (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:Anatomy navs[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 2020 August 18. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2020 (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:Cerebral palsy and other paralytic syndromes[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 2020 August 18. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2020 (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:Inflammation[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 2020 August 18. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2020 (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:Allergic conditions[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 Move. This is the wrong venue to propose the moves, but this is not a convertial move. (Amousey's oppose was an oppose to the merge.) (non-admin closure) Techie3 (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging MOVING Template:Allergic conditions and Template:Hypersensitivity and autoimmune diseases.
I want to discuss this because these two templates have the same scope. On the other hand actually, I DON'T think they should be merged, but I DO want to discuss it so that there is consensus for my planned changes.

These templates seem to do a good job of providing information. I propose that they remain separate and, to clarify the scope and formatting:

  • {{Allergic conditions}} is moved to {{Hypersensitivity disease by system}}
  • {{Hypersensitivity and autoimmune diseases}} is moved to {{Hypersensitivity disease by cause}} Tom (LT) (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is also something that TFD doesn't really need to consider. A lot of these 'maybe not for TFD' probably should have been asked at WT:MED or similar. (I do know that there has been some chatter about using TFD as this sort of clearinghouse but as you can tell based on your post last night that can be difficult for non-experts and/or might overwhelm TFD for the actual things that must be done with an XFD concensus.) --Izno (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is the most central venue to make this sort of request, as no WP 'owns' the templates and the request involves two templates. Additonal mostly copy/pasted reply for editors who haven't read my replies to these comments earlier - template work is very time-consuming and I don't want to put that work in only to have an editor revert it and then require discussion; here is a good central venue and quite active, and should be renamed "Templates for deletion" if discussion requests are to be considered inappropriate. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think until TFD is scoped to do more than total merges and deletes that you're out of scope with these requests. I see it as a waste of time and contravention of WP:BOLD otherwise. I do think the right place to discuss domain-specific navboxes and templates where the desired result is less than a full merge/delete is either the template's talk page or the appropriate domain's WikiProject, if you do not want to waste your time implementing for fear of reversion or because you don't agree about being BOLD. I do not intend to provide further comment on the discussions I have already commented on in this batch. --Izno (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't support a merge. The autoimmune and hypersensitives template is already very large and messy Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Amousey sorry, the "Merge" was an automatically entered thing. I am actually proposing to move and rescope the templates as above. Could you please comment on that proposal? (I've clarified the initial proposal above to make this clearer) --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:39, 31 July 2020 (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:Cognition, perception, emotional state and behaviour symptoms and signs[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 2020 August 21. Primefac (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2020 (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:Listen small horizontal[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) TheTVExpert (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, has obsolete syntax. Nardog (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not entirely sure what obsolete syntax means, but delete for being unused. --Izno (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2020 (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/2020_July_31&oldid=974247774"