Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 15 February 17 >

February 16

[edit]

Template:Sanlih Drama Awards Viewers Choice Drama

[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) 01:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

award without article The Banner talk 19:29, 16 February 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:Sanlih Drama Awards Best Screen Couple

[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) 01:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

award without article The Banner talk 19:29, 16 February 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:Sanlih Drama Awards China Wave Award

[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) 01:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

award without article The Banner talk 19:29, 16 February 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:Sanlih Drama Awards Best Actor

[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) 01:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

award without article The Banner talk 19:28, 16 February 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:Sanlih Drama Awards Best Kiss Award

[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) 01:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

award without article The Banner talk 19:28, 16 February 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:Sanlih Drama Awards Best Actress

[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) 01:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

award without article The Banner talk 19:27, 16 February 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:KKBox Music Award for Top 10 Singers of the Year

[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) 01:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

award without article The Banner talk 19:27, 16 February 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:Golden Melody Award for Best Female Taiwanese Singer

[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) 01:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

award without article The Banner talk 19:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Golden Melody Awards#Categories mentions the award but we don't seem to have a list of winners. Hence, the template fails that basic requirement. Nigej (talk) 20:00, 16 February 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:Golden Melody Award for Best Male Taiwanese Singer

[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) 01:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

award without article The Banner talk 19:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Golden Melody Awards#Categories mentions the award but we don't seem to have a list of winners. Hence, the template fails that basic requirement. Nigej (talk) 20:00, 16 February 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:TaipeiFest Best Feature Film

[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) 01:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

award without article (link leads to the festival, not the award) The Banner talk 19:21, 16 February 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:Kinema Junpo Award for Best Foreign Language Film

[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) 01:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

award without article The Banner talk 19:20, 16 February 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:Kono Light Novel ga Sugoi! light novel rankings No.1

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

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unclear what the purpose of this navigation template is. The Banner talk 19:15, 16 February 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:Ahnentafel-chart

[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. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Ahnentafel-chart with Template:Ahnentafel.
Standardisation. Shouldn't Template:Ahnentafel suffice? PPEMES (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ahnentafel-chart}} is a generalisation of {{3gen}} which was proposed for merger last April (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_24#Template:3gen) The prosal was turned down. As I suggested in that discussion I rewrote the template to allow for more than three generations. I based the code on {{chart}} so the same tree can be built using {{chart}} but that is more difficult (see Help:Family trees#Chart template).

Ahnentafel of Herzog Ludwig (bottom to top)
Ahnentafel of Trapp (right to left)
  • Oppose The display that template Ahnentafel creats is not a standard used by all secondary sources, it is an American format for Ahnentafel trees. Other formats which are more typically Continental European (such as an tree with branches (example in Help:Family trees#Chart template) and in the first image to the right (the second shows an Ahnentafe tree built the opposite way from the wikipedia Ahnentafel template). If someone is willing to recoded the {{Ahnentafel}} template to display top to bottom, bottom to top and right to left, then a merge would be possible, but not while it can only display left to right (American style). -- PBS (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia is not paper based, keeping this template allows the option to use it, and it does not interfer with anything else. -- PBS (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The question of a possible standardised presentation, and if so which, still remain, though, doesn't it? PPEMES (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not because while there has to be consisteny withing an article, there is no reason for consisteny across articles: hence "Orange (colour)" and "Green (color)" with different spelling of colour and colour within the articles. -- PBS (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's see how other commentators evaluate that comparison. I still think reader's convenience merits a consideration leaning towards some kind of standard (if not for exceptionate reasons). PPEMES (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have suggested a merger. If they are to be merged then you (or someone who wants to write some code) will have to add code to do the merge. If that is not done then what you are doing in eliminating other editors choices to use different styles. Why should all articles use an American style Ahnentafel tree? If other editors agree with you then they can choose to use {{Ahnentafel}} but that is no reason to remove {{Ahnentafel-chart}} and remove that choice before {{Ahnentafel}} has been altered to allow European style displays.-- PBS (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. No strong need for a merge, reflects diversity of use here with no convincing reason to standardise, and allows articles to better reflect regional variation.--Tom (LT) (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:57, 16 February 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:Blogger

[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. Default is keep separately (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 12:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after converting (edit: or redirect) to {{Official}} or another appropriate generic external website link template.

There is no point of making a dedicated template just for linking to this (one of many) blog hosting services. In most cases, which service hosts somebody's website is not a relevant aspect of the article about them. (I noticed this e.g. here, in an article about a writer). We would not normally otherwise mention who hosts a website, unless it is germane to the topic. All we are doing by having such a template is providing free advertising for the hosting provider. Sandstein 11:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge to {{official}}. I see no prior discussion on the blogger template to justify distinguishing it from the more general template. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the moment. If this template is being used for promotional purposes, eg. linking to blogger when itsn't a notable part of the articles, then uses should be removed. However I can see that it could make the editing experience easier and I think the large number of uses are evidence of that. So although I can see there is an ideological reason for deleting, which I am partial to, I think there is a pragmatic reason for keeping. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, for a foobar.blogspot.com the web site feed d:Property:P1019 is a known pattern foobar.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss and {{blogger|foobar}} would be all it takes to create the statement. With {{official website|foobar.blogspot.com}} it's minimally more convoluted, something in the direction of "is there a dot blogspot dot substring in the URL", not necessarily followed by com. Not really difficult, any bot owner intending to get thousands of web site feeds into WikiData will manage it, eventually. OTOH, is that a case of WP:AINTBROKE, what exactly are you trying to fix? –84.46.52.45 (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and modify so that the visible text only says "FOO on blog". I noticed this TfD when I tried to use this template {{blogspot|soodvikram}} which gave the result "Vikram Sood on Blogger". I think User:Sandstein's suggestion that we must not be advertising blogspot makes sense. So why not just rename "blogger" as a generic "blog" and solve this issue. I dont agree with merging with {{Official}}. IMHO I feel this template is useful for cases when the subject does not have an official website but still has a personal blog. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense, but it's not the same thing as "any blog". Technical details for Blogspot vs. Wordpress vs. "DIY" differ and can be relevant, e.g., what's the feed URL, is it Atom or RSS, who can comment, and can the blog appear as ordinary webpage foobar.org. Same idea as for a Wiki, I'd want to know if that is MediaWiki or something else. –84.46.53.251 (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:57, 16 February 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:Songkick

[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 February 24. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:17, 24 February 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:Lira

[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:Pound (currency). (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Lira with Template:Pound (currency).
{{Lira}} is redundant to {{Pound (currency)}} because the origins for the words "pound" and "lira" are the same. Additionally, there are already currencies named "lira" in the Pound (currency) template. There should only be one template for currencies named pound, lira, livre, or similar. Eyesnore 15:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace/revert and delete Lira template - {{Pound (currency)}} has all the currencies in {{Lira}} except the Italian Lira which was removed from it by an IP user on 6 September 2017. The Lira template is quite new: 25 November 2018‎ and has 9 transclusion, made by the same user at the same time, who deleted Pound (currency) from those articles where he found it. Article Lira still has the Pound (currency) template. Seems logical to simply replace/revert the 9 uses of the Lira template with Pound (currency) and then delete it, to get back to where we started. All a lot of wasted effort. Nigej (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nigej: I just restored the Italian lira link to the {{Pound (currency)}} template. Eyesnore 16:56, 16 February 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 Maldives

[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 Template:Infobox Maldives. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Maldives with Template:Infobox settlement.
Nothing of any added value here that cannot be easily provided by direct use of {{Infobox settlement}}. Another incarnation of this template (Template:Infobox Maldives atoll) has already been removed via This TFD. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:09, 16 February 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary 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.

See also recent batches of similar wrappers, which were all deleted: 2018 November 23, 2019 February 6.

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. 77.183.150.15 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 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_February_16&oldid=1251539935"