Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 14 April 16 >

April 15

[edit]

Template:Infobox UK place

[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 keep. Primefac (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose: Convert to a wrapper of {{Infobox settlement}}

What is possible and useful in the case of French commune (37000 transclusions), German location (13000 transclusions) [1] should also be possible and useful in the case of UK place.

No content will be lost, no code in the articles will change - just the back-end code in the template itself will be changed to use Infobox settlement.

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. 77.13.54.209 (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Underlying lk: You created several wrappers before. What do you think about feasibility here? 77.13.54.209 (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, if it's not broke there's no need to fix it. As Redrose says, there are specific UK parameters which work perfectly well. More importantly shouldn't this roving IP editor (that's popped up from nowhere to propose this major change) at least give a lengthier more convincing rationale for this change? Sionk (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sionk, "if it's not broke there's no need to fix it" - is that true? If making the template code simpler, would qualify as fix, then would you call the current code bloat broken? 78.54.12.178 (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe the nominator (you?) needs to address the concerns expressed by Redrose about the UK local government parameters and other unique(?) attributes. Are you a UK editor? Sionk (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sionk - which concerns about the "UK local government parameters and other unique(?) attributes"? - that is not included in the statement(s) by "Redrose". 89.14.53.24 (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Get your reading glasses on and save me repeating it. Rather than ask questions, the nominator should be answering questions and attempting to reassure people. I've spent years of my life writing articles about UK (particularly Wales) villages, communities and electoral wards. I don't want to lose an Infobox that has ready-made, specific parameters which saves me from working out how to manipulate some sort of one-size-fits-all code. Sionk (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • FUD I don't want to lose an Infobox that has ready-made, specific parameters which saves me from working out how to manipulate some sort of one-size-fits-all code. - Did you read the proposal? The template will not be lost. .... "Get your reading glasses on" - if you need them, maybe you should get yours on?" 78.55.6.151 (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the two templates look nothing alike. IB UK place uses lots of unique parameters that would be impractical to merge into IB settlement. I mostly find those parameters to be of dubious relevance, and wouldn't oppose excluding them in a future rewrite.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    eh bien mon prince, the proposal is not about merging code into Infobox settlement. 78.54.12.178 (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Change for the sake of change, and furthermore a deepening of blanket standardisation. Wikipedia's problem is too much standardisation that discourages people from editing - articles/templates become centrally managed and lose any sense that anyone can edit them - which is the core concept of what wikipedia is meant to be about. SFC9394 (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    FUD
    "Change for the sake of change" - not true
    "furthermore a deepening of blanket standardisation" - increasing consistency, reducing code, yes
    "Wikipedia's problem is too much standardisation that discourages people from editing " - that might be true, but hardly can apply here, when for article authors nothing will change
    "articles/templates become centrally managed and lose any sense that anyone can edit them" - the proposal only affects a template and would make the template code simpler
    Now, after debunking your FUD, any other oppose reason? 78.54.12.178 (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith and respect other's opinions, thanks. SFC9394 (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SFC9394??? 89.14.53.24 (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, concurring with reasons given above. Mauls (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mauls - Which "reasons"? There only seems to be misinformation. Do you see any reason? Which is it? 89.14.53.24 (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - there is no reason why there should be different codebases and styles used for the same topic for different countries. The UK is not anymore special than the other 100+ countries in the world, and as such, there is no nothing that can't be done with the base template. Changing it to a wrapper will make maintaining easier and will make the style consistent with other articles of the same topic. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_2#Template:Infobox_U.S._state for a similar discussion and result. --Gonnym (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as long as the functionality is fully replicated, this is a good change because it reduces redundancy. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Sionk and others. It's a widely used template that works fine and is easily maintained as is. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Wikimandia, why would "widely used template" be any reason in this TfD? It will stay to be a widely used template. And what about "is easily maintained as is." - even easier later on. 78.55.6.151 (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there are some very specific things about this template, such as automatic ambulance/fire/police area detection based on postcode, OS grid handling code and other error checking code, which would be harder to keep and be more convoluted when using Template:Infobox settlement as a wrapper. What if a change to that template then caused errors with the UK template, which would most likely go unnoticed by the editor of the Template:Infobox settlement template. The template itself has not changed at all much recently (only 4 edits ago was in the middle of 2018), so I feel that the justification of standardisation is better for maintainability is not relevant here, as the template hardly needs changing anyway. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, take the subpage of the template Template:Infobox UK place/local, which is then used in the template 59 different times. This would be a pain to implement and potentially also mess up the wrapper template by overextending it to handle this template. In short, it is best to keep a complicated template away from another complicated template, especially when they are not built to handle one another. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Dreamy Jazz - there can still be specific code. Do you understand the concept of a Infobox settlement wrapper? All the wrappers have specific code. 78.55.6.151 (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying that it isn't possible, but I am saying that it would make the template more problematic due to the complications and extra code needed to make it possible. In short, it would make it harder to maintain. I suggest that if you (or any other editor) feels that they want this to happen, they create a mockup in a sandbox so that we can decide to implement a fully working solution (and not an idea). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 18:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Dreamy Jazz - now you come up with the next unproven statement. Why would calling the specific template:Infobox settlement instead of template:Infobox "make the template more problematic due to the complications and extra code needed to make it possible"? Why would it "make it harder to maintain"? template:Infobox settlement provides code that will not be needed anymore in Template:Infobox UK place - making it smaller and easier to manage. 77.191.14.146 (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have said above, it is the automatic ambulance/fire/police area detection based on postcode, OS grid handling code and other error checking code and use of the subpage of the template Template:Infobox UK place/local 59 different times in different places in the code of the infobox. There is also a lot of code which would require extending the proposed wrapper template. This includes (but is not limited to) adding:
    • Shire information capabilities
    • Ceremonial counties information capabilities
    • Lieutenancy areas capabilities
    • Civil parishes capabilities
    • Distance to: London / Edinburgh / Dublin / Belfast / Cardiff / Douglas / Charing Cross capabilities
    • Fire / Ambulance / Police areas capabilities
    • Constituency information capabilities (multiple Constituencies could be defined, but not fully supported by the proposed wrapper and would require adding extra parameters)
    As you can see from the selection of changes needed to the wrapper template to be able to support parts of the infobox, this will cause problems no end. Also, if full moving to the wrapper template is needed (and would most likley be the case), a lot of subpages and code would need to be added to the wrapper template ontop of the bits listed above (code for automatic ambulance/fire/police area detection based on postcode, OS grid handling code and other error checking code). Also, having the template split will cause maintenance efforts to be directed to two templates. One change which does not affect the wrapper template may fully break the UK place template, without the changer noticing.
    In short, no, it won't make it easier to manage or even make the amount of code smaller. The proof is in reading the code of both templates, which you can do yourself if you feel like you want to. If you want me to explicitly give proof (although this will be just quoting both the templates code) I can. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 23:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also UK goverment is complicated and so an area may have multiple different post codes or no post code at all. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 23:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Redrose64, Sionk & Dreamy Jazz. There seems no advantage in standardisation. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I have used this template a fair few times over the last 15 years, and it is sophisticated. The arguments given for change are few and the arguments for the status quo are many. The tone of the responses to the reasoned objections are more akin to denial, and gives me no confidence that this has been thought through. As a way forward I should suggest that the proposers set up half a dozen /sandboxes where they can demonstrate the two templates side by side and show that nothing would be lost in the transfer. It must work for all difficult cases not just the simple place names on the tourist route.
I have had a look at the German Ort, French commune and comment that they were local government systems were set up logically- not like the evolved system in the UK.I think of Ilford and the IG postcode area. I think of the Boundary Estate (still not done) or Frindsbury Extra which share ME2 ME3 (parished) and Frindsbury which is not- and Higham, Kent which share ME2 ME3 postcodes. These things are of interest to UK place editors and readers. ClemRutter (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. per Redrose, Dreamy Jazz, et al. I am unconvinced that the nominator actually understands that things like local government in the UK is complicated, inconsistent and unpredictable. I'm also unconvinced that merging a very complicated template into an already very complicated template will actually make maintenance easier - it seems more likely that changes will introduce accidental errors that are harder to detect and harder to identify. Thryduulf (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as per Redrose, Dreamy Jazz and others ~ the current template works fine, I have not been convinced for the need for change or by the combative nature of some of the arguements. ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:29, 27 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:UAAP Season 81 schedule

[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. Have already been deleted by Fastily (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged (with attribution) with UAAP Season 81 volleyball tournaments, UAAP Season 80 volleyball tournaments, UAAP Season 79 volleyball tournaments, UAAP Season 78 volleyball tournaments, ... UAAP Season 71 volleyball tournaments Frietjes (talk) 14:24, 15 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:Genealogy of Tamar and her family

[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) 00:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused; included directly in the article Frietjes (talk) 13:46, 15 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:Kuwait parliamentary election, 2006

[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. Already deleted by Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template since 2006 Kuwaiti general election uses a different table, with very different values. Gonnym (talk) 12:57, 15 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:Kazakh presidential election, 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 delete. Already deleted by Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template since 2005 Kazakh presidential election uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 12:55, 15 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:Belgian chamber election/top

[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. Already deleted by Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template since Belgian chamber election tables seem to have been changed to use {{electiontable}} instead. Gonnym (talk) 12:51, 15 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:Queen Elizabeth class battleship beam

[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. Already deleted by Fastily. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following templates are all unused versions of information manually entered into the infobox at Queen Elizabeth-class battleship. Gonnym (talk) 12:24, 15 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).

Infobox premiership/presidency

[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 keep but merge – both templates have been merged into template:Infobox administration. Colonestarrice (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Per WP:Infobox#Requirement: Can't be addressed by the existing infoboxes. There is no obvious reason as to why {{Infobox officeholder}} cannot be used to serve the same purpose in premiership/presidency articles. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 15 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:PortalSEEselection

[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 As I'm the only substantial editor of both templates and don't object to their deletion, I've speedy deleted both under CSD G7. WaggersTALK 11:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused templates that were used at Portal:South East England. After talking to the the portal maintainer mentioned on the talk page (User:Waggers), it seems the portal was changed to use different templates. See discussion for further details. Gonnym (talk) 11:42, 15 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_15&oldid=897337218"