Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 13
November 13
[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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Club Atlético Talleres (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Talleres de Córdoba (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
only used in one article. Frietjes (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
only used in one article, and partially duplicates Template:Coke Studio (Pakistan). Frietjes (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Frietjes, yes it is being used in only one article, because it contains the seasonal information of series, for example, it will show the seasons happening, its performers, musicians and other happening covering only particular season. It was not made to depict series as a whole. Faizan (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Faizan, right, so it duplicates all the information already found in Coke Studio Pakistan (Season 7)#Season Line-up Chart, which makes it unnecessary. Frietjes (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete as a test page. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
no content. Frietjes (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as useless —PC-XT+ 04:39, 14 November 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Ethias League teams 2013-14 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Ethias League teams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
replaced by Template:Belgian Basketball League. Frietjes (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
subset of Template:Football in Greece. Frietjes (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Template:International Youth Football Invitation Tournament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
all redlinks. Frietjes (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete with no quorum/objection to deletion
incomplete, and if completed the scope would be tremendous since it would duplicate Category:Television stations in India and all the subcategories. Frietjes (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
defunct conference. Frietjes (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete with no objections/no quorum
unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. No objections to deletion/no quorum
- Template:Justice Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
unused and duplicates Template:Justice Party (United States)/meta/color. Frietjes (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete with no objections/no quorum Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
unused, whereas template:Kenyan Premier League is used. Frietjes (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedily deleted per author approval. Frietjes (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Template:MTR Light Rail routes/1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:MTR Light Rail routes/2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:MTR Light Rail routes/3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:MTR Light Rail routes/4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:MTR Light Rail routes/5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:MTR Light Rail routes/6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:MTR Light Rail routes/7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:MTR Light Rail routes/12 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
no longer needed after being merged with {{MTR Light Rail routes}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support agree, no longer needed. As template creator, have added
{{db-author}}to all listed templates Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 15:10, 13 November 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep both or don't merge, or however we like to call it, by obvious consensus. I note that the consensus here is that even though parameters are at least partially overlapping, and through a merge could be made (almost) completely overlapping, the templates should be kept separate because the subjects are too different. 10:58, 21 November 2014 User:Martijn Hoekstra ([1] sign added -DePiep (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC))
- Template:Infobox rockunit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Infobox landform (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Propose merging Template:Infobox rockunit with Template:Infobox landform.
Similar purposes and overlapping parameter lists; merger probably best achieved by making one a wrapper or redirect of the other. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. A rock unit is stratigraphic unit and is typically only known in the subsurface. The surface expression of a rock unit or formation is an outcrop and only in outcrop does or may it form a landform such as a butte or mesa cap. The parameters of the two infoboxen are quite different. A rock unit is a strictly geological concept, whereas a landform is a geographical/geomorphological concept. Vsmith (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Vsmith. If we further dilute {{Infobox landform}} with stratigraphic parameters, we are just asking for problems from naive editors (ala Geobox). As I have said before, I would rather delete {{Infobox landform}}. —hike395 (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with both of the above editors. The problem is that rock units (stratigraphic units) are very, if not entirely, different geological entities than landforms. The parameters of the two infoboxen are quite different and have neither "overlapping parameters" nor have "similar purposes" as incorrectly claimed above. Mixing such utterly different types of classification systems would only serve to hopelessly confuse Wikipedia readers and greatly degrade the scientific and educational value of many Wikipedia articles. Paul H. (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please don't accuse me of posting falsehoods. The overlapping parameters include:
|name=,|age=,|image=(|photo=),|type=,|area=,|map=,|location=(|region=,|country=), and|coordinates=.- I did not accuse you of making falsehoods. I just stated that conflating a geomorphological classification with a geological classification and claiming that they the same and redundant is an honest mistake can be disproven by any undergraduate textbook in physical geology and physical geology. The word "incorrect" indicates an honest mistake that is not a falsehood as you incorrectly stated above. Paul H. (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, parameters such as name, image, photo, area, type, location, region, country, and coordinates, can be found in many Wikipedia templates. It utterly meaningless that the landform and rock unit templates share such parameters. Paul H. (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please don't accuse me of posting falsehoods. The overlapping parameters include:
- Oppose Agree with Paul. Rock units are more than just landforms. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 06:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment This is not a debate about how different rock units are from other landforms; it is a discussion as to whether or not we need two templates, instead of one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per Vsmith. Volcanoguy 12:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment — Firstly, I agree with Mr. Mabbett that the discussion is about template redundancy and organization, rather than geological classifications, but I also agree with the others here that the rockunit template is specialized, while the landform one is more general. I'd hate to lose the specialization, but it could be merged into a feature of a more general template. The look of the specialized rockunit template should be kept, without adding irrelevant information to the general usage. The documentation would need to separate the specific use from the general use, which may make it more confusing. Specialized usage for actual landforms could possibly be included. I'm not sure how practical this would be. Honestly, I would !vote to delete the landform one if I didn't think it was useful. I'm really on the fence, here. —PC-XT+ 06:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I have to disagree. We are not talking solely about about "geological classification." Instead we are talking about two different and separate classifications, geomorphological classification (landforms) versus geological classification (rock units). One deals with landscape morphology and the other deals with subsurface stratigraphy which are two entirely different realms of science. These are two very distinct classifications (and entities) as can be demonstrated by either reading any beginning textbook or undergraduate lecture in physical geography or physical geology. As a result, having separate templates for each does not result in any template redundancy. If anything the landform template needs to made more specialized to include more information. I frankly do not see what harm is done in having separate templates. On the other hand, mixing geomorphology with geology will only serve to confuse Wikipedia readers and generally discredit Wikipedia as a source of information among geologists and geomorphologists. Paul H. (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- I understand there are two entirely different classification systems to consider. The above comments gave me the impression that the geomorphological classification is somewhat tainted by some usages of the landform template, and members of both were called geological entities, so I didn't mention the geomorphological one specifically, except as a passing mention. (I agree that the landform template should be more specialized.) This is a place to discuss templates, rather than other systems. Templates can handle multiple entirely different and unrelated classification systems, if there are enough similarities. The problem is whether the systems are similar enough to be handled practically by one template, in such a way that specialization for each classification would be maintained and improved, while accounting for the extra uses that currently pollute the landform classification. I doubted that, and so delayed my !vote. If the landform template could be specialized for only geomorphological classification, and another template found for its other uses, a merger would probably be impractical, and it would keep the parameter lists totally separate, even checked for validity, avoiding accidental misuse. It simply depends on whether we want this stuff to be handled in one template or two or three. The same problems need fixing, in any case. Which case would provide a better environment for fixing the problems? A merge could be harder to maintain and develop, so I have ultimately come to the decision that these templates should be kept separate, to encourage landform template development to better handle geomorphological classification. We wouldn't want the problems to creep into the rockunit template, so a merge would need to be done carefully, if at all. —PC-XT+ 18:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- The more I look at their uses, the more I am convinced that these would be better kept separate. Prior discussions have determined that it is too confusing to have one template with multiple varying uses, and I think merging these would be getting too close to that, because this is not just about classification. —PC-XT+ 07:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- I understand there are two entirely different classification systems to consider. The above comments gave me the impression that the geomorphological classification is somewhat tainted by some usages of the landform template, and members of both were called geological entities, so I didn't mention the geomorphological one specifically, except as a passing mention. (I agree that the landform template should be more specialized.) This is a place to discuss templates, rather than other systems. Templates can handle multiple entirely different and unrelated classification systems, if there are enough similarities. The problem is whether the systems are similar enough to be handled practically by one template, in such a way that specialization for each classification would be maintained and improved, while accounting for the extra uses that currently pollute the landform classification. I doubted that, and so delayed my !vote. If the landform template could be specialized for only geomorphological classification, and another template found for its other uses, a merger would probably be impractical, and it would keep the parameter lists totally separate, even checked for validity, avoiding accidental misuse. It simply depends on whether we want this stuff to be handled in one template or two or three. The same problems need fixing, in any case. Which case would provide a better environment for fixing the problems? A merge could be harder to maintain and develop, so I have ultimately come to the decision that these templates should be kept separate, to encourage landform template development to better handle geomorphological classification. We wouldn't want the problems to creep into the rockunit template, so a merge would need to be done carefully, if at all. —PC-XT+ 18:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose As Vsmith and Paul H have pointed out, these are quite different and a merger would not be helpful. Dougweller (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Despite some inevitable overlap with the landform template, the stratigraphic template contains many parameters that are unique to it and to try to force a merger of the two seems pointless. Mikenorton (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose For the reasons that have already been enumerated. Rock units are not the same as landforms, and landforms are not the same as rock units. As can be seen in the use as Mount Rainier and Chinle Formation, the minor similarities of the two boxes are outweighed by the major differences in application and scope.--Kevmin § 23:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nothing gained in a merge, they are two different topics. re PC-XT 06:06: I do not understand this. How can the topic here be "about template redundancy and organization" only? These is not categorizing! If the topics are different, the templates should be different. A very strong indicator is different parameters names and different parameter meanings. By their (geological) topics, that is the case here. This TfD pair is not about parameter spelling differences or other trivial differences. Then when we merges two such templates, the resulting one will mainly have the same distinct parameters of course, added. There is no gain, because there is no overlap. On top of this you add that the "look" of one should be kept for certtain situations - a horror to create, to document and to use. The fact that you could not find a solution for this one says a lot. (There is no profit in this merge, other than proving that all templates can be put into one big {{template}}). -DePiep (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was moving to User:Polaris999/for loop, but feel free to move it elsewhere, or history merge it back or whatever. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Template:For loop/old (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
I copied the code for this template from Template:For loop after I converted it to Lua, as there are some things that you can do with substitution in this template that you can't do with the Lua module. However, no-one has used it, and now the examples on the /doc page are putting it in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. I think we're probably better off just using the Lua module. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- delete Frietjes (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- this piece of historical curiosa is obsolete. But it's also a historical document of sorts; it can be used to show mediawiki templates can be used as a (turing complete) programming language. If it can be moved to project space and marked as historical as a testament of how ye olde Wikipedian used to toil in template space to earn a meager income that'd be nice. If not, I'd like this userfied to my own userspace. Regardless, it shouldn't be used anymore, and should be removed from template space. So, uh, that's move I guess. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Move per Martijn Hoekstra —PC-XT+ 07:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Move per MH, mark {{historical}} -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. No objections, no quorum Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
only used in one article. Frietjes (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Mayors of Giv'atayim (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:MayorsofGiv'atayim (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
only one working link. Frietjes (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as useless —PC-XT+ 06:16, 15 November 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
- 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. No quorum/no objection to deletion
unused and subset of Template:Churches on Gotland. Frietjes (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.