Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 13 April 15 >

April 14

[edit]

Template:Image hoax

[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 May 20. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:27, 20 May 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).

Infobox settlement wrappers

[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 — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose: Replace and delete

City-specific wrappers for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, 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.

Very uncommon practice: these seem to be the only city-specific Infobox settlement wrappers for neighbo(u)rhoods. All other cities in Wikipedia do without.

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". That is practice for over a decade, it is used on ~ 500000 articles. 89.12.75.89 (talk) 20:06, 14 April 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:Sylvia Ratonel

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This singer's navigational template does not consist of enough links to justify its existence. The template currently has a biography article, an album, a redirect to the biography, a link to the reality show they competed on and a link to the cosmetic company they worked for, so there are only two justifiable links and WP:NENAN. Aspects (talk) 19:17, 14 April 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:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1922

[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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with just two links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This is one of a whole string of "by year" templates for "Aviation accidents and incidents" and I couldn't find one with more than four linked articles in them. Now, I only had time to check five years on either side of this one so I don't know how many there are altogether. You may want to expand this to a group tfd WilliamJE if you have the time and patience. MarnetteD|Talk 19:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the series has a navbox for every year from 1920-2019, and a pre-1920 one to catch the earlier ones. Perhaps it might need a think about these there is not an actual connection between the accidents other than the year it is a bit artificial, one using location or operator are more of use for navigation. Perhaps we should consider dumping the lot as we also have a category system and various list articles that can be used if you really need to know which accidents happened in the same year. MilborneOne (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1920 through Template:aviation accidents and incidents in 1929, inclusive, to Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in the 1920s or something like that. This and two other aviation accident year navboxes have been nominated for deletion (on different days) with the rationale that there aren't enough entries, apparently without considering the obvious solution of merging a decade of templates into one. There aren't many Wikipedia articles about notable aviation accidents in the 1920s, yet, but there are plenty as you progress through the later years of the navbox series. RecycledPixels (talk) 14:46, 17 April 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 IPL-MI-Batting

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused and now reason why it could not be included directly in a parent article if needed Frietjes (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That Templates belongs to 2017 Indian Premier League Final (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Keep I added it on main article 2017 Indian Premier League Final (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 13:39, 14 April 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:Other people3

[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:About-otherpeople. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Other people3 with Template:About-otherpeople.
Deprecated since 2016 with a note to use {{About-otherpeople}} instead. Uses should be replaced with correct template. Gonnym (talk) 11:58, 14 April 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:Dec to frac

[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) 23:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template has been deprecated since 2016 and is unused. Gonnym (talk) 11:25, 14 April 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:Pubchemcite

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated template since 2015 which also had its code removed, so currently it does nothing. Gonnym (talk) 11:21, 14 April 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:Infobox Primeval creature

[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 Frietjes (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Primeval creature with Template:Infobox fictional race.
This template is used for semi-real life (groups of) creatures that appeared in Primeval (TV series) and is only used at List of creatures in Primeval. |number=, |humans_killed= and |returned= should not be kept as they are too in-universe specific. Gonnym (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both as-is The two infoboxes are considerably different and serve different purposes. Infobox Primeval creature was created specifically as an in-universe infobox for use in only one article where it is used 80 times instead of using 80 hard-coded tables in the article which is impractical. As it stands now the article is 132kB. Replacing the infobox with tables would result in the article needing to be split. The instructions quite clearly explain the purpose and intent saying the infobox is "to create an infobox for any fictional creature from the series' :Primeval and Primeval: New World. It is only intended for use in List of creatures in Primeval where it is used 80 times." It should not be expanded outside the of Primeval universe because of its deliberate in-universe design. It shares no commonality with Infobox fictional race. Almost every field is irrelevant to Primeval. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of your statements are just false so I need to correct them. The two infoboxes are considerably different and serve different purposes - both infoboxes are for races/species from a fictional setting. where it is used 80 times instead of using 80 hard-coded tables in the article which is impractical no idea where you read that the proposal said to have 80 hard-coded tables, as the proposal was to replace one infobox with another, or are you stretching that argument to say that including |franchise=Primeval is impractical? If that is the case that is completely silly. Replacing the infobox with tables would result in the article needing to be split - see previous point why this is false. It shares no commonality with Infobox fictional race - really? |name=, |image=, |first_x=, |last_x=, |species= (used as |type=). The only parameters not shared, are the 3 this proposal specifically said not to merge as they are rather pointless and very much fancruft, and even in that, it caters to a very limited group, as how many dinosaurs of a specific type appeared in the series or how many people they killed is very trivial and unimportant to the series as a whole. Also, do those figures have any sources? Could there possibly even be one? Obvious answer here. As a side note I'll say that I see no value in having infoboxes set up like this for a list of characters article, where the infoboxes take up more vertical space than the sections themselves and is a hallmark of a badly written list article. --Gonnym (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • You didn't correct anything, just made some incorrect assumptions about a series you probably haven't even seen. One infobox is for fictional races while the other is for creatures. Creatures, more specifically dinosaurs, are not a race. We actually used to have {{Infobox fictional creature}}, this infobox was proposed to be merged with it back in 2014, but that infobox was deleted. Allowing expansion of Infobox fictional race to include creatures would be allowing recreation of a pseudo Infobox fictional creature and it would certainly get used for that. Infobox fictional race doesn't have fields that easily lend themselves to replacing the fields in Infobox Primeval creature so it would be far better to use individual tables. The fields that you mentioned lend themselves to a heap of problems. |name= has already been mentioned. We don't want to turn Infobox fictional race back into infobox fictional creature. The |first_x= and |last_x= fields are too unweildy to use for the two series and multiple books that form Primeval. That's why Infobox Primeval creature has specific fields for the two series and one to mention the related books. It doesn't use separate fields for major and minor works. While part of the same 2-TV series, multi-book franchise, each series and book is a separate, individual work. As it stands now we don't list only when it first appeared in one work and last appeared in another work, we list when it first and last appeared in each TV series and which book that it appeared in because there is little overlap between the individual works. To use Infobox fictional race you would need multiple first_major fields or the entire purpose of the infobox would be changed. The three fields that you are attempting to discard are very much part of the story in Primeval, which is primarily about incursion of dinosaurs into modern times and the effect that their appearances cause. For that reason the number of dinosaurs and how many humans were killed is significant. Also, do those figures have any sources? As you are well aware from having participated in the TV project, episodes are classed as reliable primary sources and like every other TV article on Wikipedia, the information is sourced from the aired episodes, which is why they are mentioned in the infobox. You know that the TV project supports this. Now lets look at the parameters that aren't common: |affiliation=, |alignment=, |base_of_operations=, |based_on=, |capital=, |caption=, |creator=, |currency=, |distinctions=, |franchise=, |home_world=, |iu_creator=, |iu_created_date=, |language=, |leader=, |leaders=, |members=, |name=, |other_names=, |quadrant=, |religion=, |series= and |sub_races=. I haven't included the redundant para_x fields but that's 23 fields. Compare that to Infobox Primeval creature which has 12 in total. The two infoboxes are like chalk and cheese.
      • Going back to an earlier attempt to make a point when you said no idea where you read that the proposal said to have 80 hard-coded tables, as the proposal was to replace one infobox with another (etc), if you actually read what I wrote instead of chopping apart what I said you will see that I said that creating an infobox for the 80 uses in that article was preferable to using individual tables in each section: Infobox Primeval creature was created specifically as an in-universe infobox for use in only one article where it is used 80 times instead of using 80 hard-coded tables in the article which is impractical. I wasn't specifically talking about your proposal as should have been obvious from "Infobox Primeval creature was created". This just happens to be why we make infoboxes in the first place. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow. So much text. Just to comment quickly - I've seen the show and still think the parameters I discarded are pointless and as you've pointed out, as a member of the TV WP, I know what the discussions are about trivia information and how the community feels about them. Also, I indeed corrected your misdirection. When you comment and say that a table will cause the article to need to be split, it makes it seem as if that was a proposal on the table, which it wasn't. Not everyone reads your mind or knows of previous discussions. Regarding the parameters you think are pointless in the current template, some of them I totally agree with you, however they are all part of former mergers, which you could have voiced your opinion on. Also, stop with the "we" as it can be used both ways. "We" have {{Infobox fictional race}}. "We" have |type= that deals with species of a race. "We" are not against combining "race" and "species" in the same infobox. "We" didn't decide that {{Infobox fictional creature}} is not needed, "we" decided to merge it with {{Infobox character}} which is the correct thing to do when the infobox is about a specific creature and not a group of creatures. --Gonnym (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the existing infobox was to be replaced with Infobox fictional race without significant changes meant to cater for a single article, it would be far better to replace the infobox with tables that actually meant something to the series. That would certainly result in a size blowout that I tested back in 2014. If Infobox fictional race were changed so that it catered for creatures it would need to be renamed and then it would be appropriate to either recreate infobox fictional creature as separate from infobox character, or more likely, infobox fictional race/creature for a merge with infobox character. Given that infobox fictional creature could be merged with into infobox character, why not infobox fictional creature/race? Much of what is in that infobox could be regarded as fancruft. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear merge per proposal in the OP. --Izno (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Izno. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Merge per someone else" is rarely a convincing argument, especially when there are arguments to keep the infobox that haven't been addressed. At best it demonstrates acomplete lack of understanding as to how and why this infobox is being used as it is. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of your arguments have been addressed. I choose to stop responding as it was leading nowhere as you were just rehashing the same things. --Gonnym (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, you haven't addressed all of the concerns, and there are more that haven't been mentioned because you failed to address all of the concerns that had been stated. You just said Wow. So much text and then seemed to give up. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • ...--Gonnym (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's not at all helpful. I'm more than willing to explain all of the problems in detail but if that's going to be your response... You've clearly decided that you are right and are not willing to participate in any discussion. That's not the way to defend your stance, which most definitely demonstrates a total misunderstanding of how Infobox Primeval creature is used and why merging it into an unrelated template is wrong. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I've posted several times now, I perfectly understand how it is used, why it is used as such, and why I don't agree that replacing it with the general infobox is wrong. The reason I've tried to stop this discussion with you, as that I know where this is going, as you've used the same tactic in each of our previous discussions about other issues. It's just pointless. I've presented my points, you've presented yours, let other editors comment and stop trying to derail this by false accusations. --Gonnym (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, you clearly don't understand how it's being used in the article. Unfortunately I haven't got time to elaborate now as I've received from devastating news and I have to cut time here short. I'll add something tomorrow. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • I haven't had the opportunity to put it all together yet and, at this time it seems pointless elaborating at length unless somebody else is going to join the discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as-is - While on the surface the two templates seem similar, the use case for the Primeval template is completely different, being used in a list to provide information specifically in the Primeval universe. As for the generic template, that is provides very generic information that would not fit in the use-case provided. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contrib) 18:05, 10 May 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:Deo Block

[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 speedy delete. Deleted per CSD G5 by User:Bbb23. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion As it stands it only links to two articles. Also there is no article for Deo, Block so I am not sure what the template creator is trying to accomplish. If there were articles for all the villages it becomes too large and unwieldy. Now if anyone can figure out how to make this work I will withdraw this nomination MarnetteD|Talk 01:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. At around 120 links, it's not going to be too large and there's no meaningful smaller-scale administrative division to use as the basis of a template. Still, only 3 of these villages appear to have articles at the moment. I've linked them in the template, so there's just about enough links for navigation. Deo Block doesn't exist because it hasn't been created yet. – Uanfala (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note. It only has five links at the moment. MarnetteD|Talk 07:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also can you explain what Deo Block is and how does it differ from Deo, Bihar. MarnetteD|Talk 07:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deo, Bihar is a town in Aurangabad district, Bihar of Deo Block subdivision ex - Deo Block Link- [1] & Deo, Bihar Link- — Preceding unsigned comment added by PujaDeo (talk • contribs) 19:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deo, Bihar is a town, Deo Block is an administrative unit centred on the town that includes a hundred or so villages. – Uanfala (talk) 06:52, 16 April 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_April_14&oldid=898100426"