Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 27 July 29 >

July 28

[edit]

Template:Archiving

[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. Primefac (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template tells people not to edit the page since it is currently being archived. I have no idea when this would be useful. First of all most pages aren't even archived manually, especially high traffic pages where edit conflicts would be more common where bots are used to make it simpler for everyone. Even when archiving manually on a quite high use page archiving is such a quick process I can't see it being a major process. I also think putting a banner like this one is a bit weird since it explicitley says please don't try to communicate with me right now which is bound to stifle communication when used. --Trialpears (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as creator. As described in Help:Archiving a talk page/Other procedures, there are processes which some editors may use on their user talk pages which are less speedy than "standard" archiving. I am aware of no policy which specifically and unambiguously forbids the use of those procedures on your own user talk page (although they may be disfavored elsewhere). I have used this template myself in the past, and I intend to use it in the future. The fact that a template is inapplicable to "most pages" is certainly not a valid reason for deletion. --NYKevin 22:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    NYKevin, thank you for pointing these out; we should always consider all plausible uses! I'm not convinced it is useful here either though. Permanent link archives should be a one edit thing where there isn't even an edit in which it makes any sense to add the archiving template which makes that use case quite implausible. The last method being the move method which I saw you were using with the {{archiving}} template. This is definitely the most useful place to use the template, but it seems like the entire process takes just 2 minutes. Even the most active user talk pages such as User talk:Jimbo Wales have only 0.01 edits a minute making the risk for edit conflicts minuscule even on the most active pages with Jimbo expecting 5 edit conflicts in almost two decades of constantly having one of the absolutely most trafficked talk pages. If you think it is useful anyway I don't have a problem with it being kept but I really don't see a use case where this would be worth the time it takes to put it on the page and then take it away. --Trialpears (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Re move archiving: My usual process is to tag the page with {{archiving}}, move it, blank the newly-created redirect (or stick whatever headers I want there), and then finally replace {{archiving}} with {{talk archive}} or similar. The goal is that nobody is ever confused about "Why does the talk page redirect to an archive? What's going on?" if they happen to open it at the wrong moment (or if they're reading a mirror, database dump, or some other cached content that only includes part of the archival process). It also means that, if I somehow get distracted and forget to finish the archival (which has never happened before, to my recollection), the page is at least in a state where others can make sense of what's going on, and (if necessary) either finish the archival process themselves, or use Special:EmailUser to reach me (as the header on my talk page already requests anyway). --NYKevin 22:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hadn't considered how confusing it could be with move archiving for people who haven't seen it before. Thank you for explaining it makes a lot more sense in light of this. I would withdraw the nomination now if it wasn't for the redirect vote. --Trialpears (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note that "I created this template for my own use" is not exactly a compelling argument... CapnZapp (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Template:In use * Pppery * it has begun... 23:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has a plausible use, and the "major edit" language of Template:In use makes much less sense in comparison when used on a talk page. --Bsherr (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note that your argument is easily solved by making the template a redirect to a more general template with a specific parameter set. CapnZapp (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as Gonnym says no more than two bullet points below. CapnZapp (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @CapnZapp: You can merge everything into {{mbox}}. That does not mean that you should. I have yet to see any sort of argument for why merging this template into {{in use}}, and thereby having it grow a ridiculously specific parameter, would make things better overall. --NYKevin 23:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the creator, and you clearly feel an ownership of your work. However, I fear I have yet to see any indication that you would be open to deleting your own work for any reason. I believe the nominator has a point: if anything is ridiculously specific, it's this template. It seems to be created specifically for your own work flow. Have you considered the possibility Wikipedia is better off with you changing the way you archive than by keeping this template? Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per reasons above. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with parameter |archive=yes which will change actively undergoing a major edit for a short while to currently being archived. No need for two templates here. --Gonnym (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not entirely thrilled with the idea of merging this into {{in use}}, because it seems to me that you'd be using a parameter to switch between two different templates. Compare and contrast {{refimprove}} and {{unreferenced}} (which are very similar, but nobody wants them merged into one template). I'm not sure what the upside of a merge would be in this case. It would also have the downside of needing to modify the "replace with {{under construction}}" language, which seems overly complicated for a single parameter to me. --NYKevin 19:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The comparison is flawed. Both {{refimprove}} and {{unreferenced}} see massive usage. In this case, we're discussing a little spring cleaning - removing a little used and probably therefore too-specific template. You're effectively arguing we should keep this because it's close to another template, which isn't logical. CapnZapp (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete People should not be making their talk pages unavailable, even for short periods - and I just removed two transclusions that were months old. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you cite a policy explicitly banning this? If not, I would like to request userfication in the event the template gets deleted, so that I can continue to archive my user talk page in the manner I see fit. --NYKevin 22:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure we need to have this discussion. Editors are entirely welcome to ask visitors to refrain from adding comments, just as visitors are welcome to decide their comments are more important that that editor's convenience. (It's not as if the template actually write-protects the page!) Just use {{In Use}} or similar if this template gets deleted. Maybe that template could get |archiving= as a parameter to avoid forcing the editor to write a specific message... CapnZapp (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's {{in use}} but specifically for manual talk page archiving. That makes complete sense to have as a template. Of course, if people are leaving it on talk pages for months at a time, then it's up to those wanting to leave a message to check that (which is why the time of the last edit is included prominently in both templates), just as with cases where people forget to remove {{in use}} when they're done editing. Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend toward delete / merge / redirect (without prejudice to userfication). The template should be temporary, so there should be no reason to have it on a page for the most part. We have a template that does that--it's {{in use}}. Archiving, if it's actually necessary to have a template that says you're archiving, is then still a major edit. --Izno (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't keep. (Whether you Redirect to or Merge with Template:In use or simply Delete is of secondary concern.) Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheTVExpert (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Soccerbase

[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 SNOW keep. This is clearly not going anywhere and keeping this open will just waste more editor time. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the Soccerbase template is to provision, in the external Links section, a link to a page on the website, soccerbase.com, which is a site of Racing Post with betting corporations partnerships that appear prominently on each webpage. As such this violates WP:ELNO, criteria 5. Individual web pages[6] that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. The particular use case that drew me to this was for Marcus Rashford but all site web pages appear to have links to gambling with one or more of the sites partners. The associated pages would be suitable for use in citations, but the purpose of the template is specifically to be used in the external links section. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. LTFC 95 (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't think the primary purpose of the Soccerbase site is to sell people anything, or that the amount of advertising is too high. It's high, sure, but it's not like there are popups everywhere preventing readers from accessing the info until they've passed through multiple layers of advertising guff. The template is useful as it allows Soccerbase to be linked to simply, which is always helpful when the site's URLs are long or complicated but follow a strict set of rules. – PeeJay 11:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with the above user. You can still see all the information easily and the template is handy for quickly updating a players' stats. I do prefer Soccerway but Soccerbase has more historical statistics available for the Football League. Cam (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a popular and widely used website for player stats, and the template is useful for its use on Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 11:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (nom): I think the primary purpose of the Soccerbase site is to make commerical money for Racing Post or they'd likely not be doing it. For me the ads. are dynamic causing eye movement away from content. But fundamentally the use of this site as a source for statisitics can easily be accomodated by using it as a source and not as a dynamic link. The fact there are alternative sources for the statistics means one provider is being refered to another. If anyone added anything like this as an external link to anything on my watchlist they'd likely get it removed and and warned for spamming. Should we create and add a Template:Soccerway. The reason that useful for inappropriate use on Wikipedia is a good reason for deletion.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC) − To state my obvious own-goal in this statement I did not check Template:Soccerway when first writing this comment.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's a fair amount of advertising on the site but it doesn't obscure the information. It is a very useful template overall. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As there are templates for both soccerbase and soccerway it is not a case of preference for a single provider. These sites may use adverting to enable them to be free to view, but this is preferable to them being user-generated or having a paywall, and they contain generally reliable statistics that are relevant to an encyclopaedic understanding of the subject. EdwardUK (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As the nominator objected on "criteria 5. Individual web pages[6] that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising", I have just clicked on his preferred link, Soccerway, and viewed the screen, M&M direct shop, NewChic, Goal on YouTube and Wayrates all advertising. Which are, to qoute nom "dynamic causing eye movement away from content". On soccerbase, I get bet365, one ad, not several ads bordering the information. Yes there is a link in the top banner for Racing Post, but not as distracting. Arnkellow (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plesae do not claim the nominator had a preference for Soccerway as I demonstrated no such preference up to this point; just really picking up from Cam's mention of the site. Actually even if Template:Soccerway had a worse advertising issue than Template:Soccerbase there is an interesting difference between the two, as illustrated in the use case Ruud Gullit. The Soccerway template is used in compliant way as a source; the Soccerbase is merely added to external links. The documentation for Soccerbase shows its design is for use as an external link whereas Soccerway's documentation reveals an additional accessdate= parameter for use in citations as has been almost properly done on the Ruud Gullit article. (I say almost as the accessdate= parameter was omitted). I personnally have no issues with either site being used for sourcing citations.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not having a built-in parameter for accessdate is not a major problem when using the template as a source as it still allows the editor to add a date within the ref tags in the citation style appropriate to the article, whereas the parameter in the soccerway template only supports CS1. However, in cases where it is used for inline citations I agree it would be useful to have the accessdate for this template too, and it should be possible to include a mode= parameter in both templates to set the citation style required. EdwardUK (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Improvements to the templates to better support inline citations is welcome. The emphais of Template:Soccerbase's documentation on use in the external link section versus use as a source is a problem area. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Female genitalia frontal cross-section numbered

[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. The image is too busy, honestly. (non-admin closure) Techie3 (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is used once, likely because it is exceedingly detailed and difficult to read. I propose substitution / deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom:
You said: "This is used once". I am an editor of the Catalan Wikipedia and I only occasionally collaborate with the English Wikipedia. I expected English Wikipedia editors to consider this template so that it could be used in more than one article, and this has not been the case. In any case, the fact that it is currently only used in one place should not be a reason for its deletion. Then I considered the usefulness of this drawing and added it in two articles to "Additional images" section.
You said: "it is exceedingly detailed". This assertion is subjective and is given by the expectations of the reader. For example, the Chinese have reproduced this template (zh:Template:Female_genitalia_frontal_cross-section_numbered).
You said: "and difficult to read". There is no difficulty in reading it (the labels are numbers) but, perhaps difficulty to locate the marked items. There are two possible solutions to your objection:
1. Zoom in on the area. In this case the visual location in the human body of the reproductive system is partially lost (to solve this -partially- problem, I added "other" labels). If this solution sounds good to you then I would redraw the number labels to a smaller size, in line with the font size of the article text. Made!. This way:

{{Female genitalia frontal cross-section numbered}}

2. Increase the image size beyond 400px. But perhaps it contradicts the policy referred to the size of the images. I don't know.
--Jmarchn (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I changed in the template the draw for the cropped image (the above one).
Jmarchn (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jmarchn (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I changed text for template. Jmarchn (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmarchn to be clear, I'm not proposing the image is deleted, just the template with the image within it. I can see we disagree on the use of the template but I just want to assure you I'm not intending for this to be any slight against the creator of the image. Whether the article is kept or deleted will depend on consensus, which I'll respect, and hence I've posted here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom: OK. But now the template is used in more than one article. The fact that it was in an only one article was the reason for removing it. So, I don’t understand why you still want to delete it. Jmarchn (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jerodlycett:
Referred to the removal of File:Uterine Horns Diagram (English).svg from the gallery: You use only the expression "exaggerated". Obviously “exaggerated” it would not justify its removal. But I used “exaggeratedly large” to justify the removal. I calculate the weight for the uterus (according the article information), thus in mine draw the weight will be 60g, but in deleted draw the weight will be 198g! (for a size increment of 48%). Already in the mine drawings of the female genital system I included the size of the uterus and vagina in the drawing, proportional to the size of the pelvis, and you can see these sizes if you edit the drawing with Inkscape, they are in the left margin and off the draw page. In other words: the female genital system (of the removed file) would not fit inside the allocated space of the pelvis. Alternatively compare the size with a correct drawing: File:Uterus_and_nearby_organs.jpg; if you want I add this one. For pedagogical reasons it is very important that the anatomical drawings (I have corrected a few) fit as closely as possible to reality; too often I find drawings with mistakes or fantasies.
But the reason you have explained to justify the removal of the template has nothing to do with whether or not the template exists.
Jmarchn (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain better then. It is only rightly used in one place, and has been bludgeoned in by you in other places where we have better images. It really does not matter that they're exaggerated because it's not an anatomy textbook. Given that only in one place is it used right, it can just be subst and deleted. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jerodlycett:
You said: "It is only rightly used in one place". It is your opinion, and you should give a good reason. You only say "better". But even if it wasn’t good enough (For you), why should it be eliminated?. In other words, in uterus there are 9 more images in "Additional images", according to you there will always be one that will not be as good as the others, then one should be removed. Then there would be 8 images left, and you could delete one by one each image until there was only one image left, the best in your opinion.
Certainly Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an anatomy book, although most anatomy articles contain images from 20th and 19th century anatomy books. You say then that it doesn’t matter if the drawing isn’t good. Then you contradict the previous paragraph in which you, as a judge, say that my drawing is not good enough to be placed in the article. I think it is important that the drawings try to reflect as much as possible (within the limitations that a drawing represents) the reality. A distorted view of reality does not help at all, the reader does not know what is (in this case) the right proportion.
You may think that the content of the image does not match the content of the article. Although my drawing shows "all" the female genitalia elements in uterus and fallopian tubes, there are other images that also show "all" the female genitalia elements and not "only" the uterus or the fallopian tubes. Do you also want to delete them? I hope you don’t. Finally, it is pertinent to show the other elements as they let to reader know what each element is related to.
Finally, all this long discussion on how does Wikipedia really improve?.
Jmarchn (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and subst where necessary. The image could be useful but the template is too busy to read. I notice it was used on one page until this TfD was opened, after which it was hurriedly inserted into two other pages to negate the "this is used once" in the original nom. In particular I think it looks quite crowded on Fallopian tube, which is a page on which we're only really interested in one part of the entire female reproductive organs anyway so I'm not sure why we need a full diagram with every part labelled when there are other pages to deal with that.
It's clear you care about your template, Jmarchn, and the deletion discussion here is not necessarily indicative of its quality, but more how appropriate it is for Wikipedia. The suggestion has been made that we subst the template into pages where it belongs, so we're not suggesting erasing your work altogether. Skylar MacDonald (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SkylarMacDonald: I disagree (on some of the points) with you. Now you are 3 against 2. You win. Then, no more wasting time with arguments. --Jmarchn (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am generally more familar with AfD discussions rather than perhaps less well frequented TfD's and rarely (if ever) have seen this conflict there, and it could be used to game the discussion. It should be noted Trialpears and myself can be seen as in dispute over an earoier close so their intervention here is non0neutral. "Generally seen" is not a great statement. But that said I assume Izno discovered information not known to themselves at the previous relist, which is quite a natural thing. But possibly better practice (in my book) would have been to commented rather than !voted, but that is a personal view. THankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • :We only have that "approximate equivalent" because it was subst'ed doing this tfd (see the in the edit) .[2] Christian75 (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see that this template could potentially (not definitely) be placed in a single article which provides an overview of the female reproductive system; perhaps Female reproductive system itself, in which I note this template has recently been substituted. However, by the standards of this wiki, it is too complex to be included in articles as a navigation aid in other articles. We judge templates at this wiki by the standards of this wiki, not other language versions of Wikipedia. Since the template is no longer required as a template it can be deleted. This, that and the other (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, only needed in one or two articles and the caption can be easily cut-and-paste from the file description page, so nothing lost if the templated version is deleted. Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Usertalkpage

[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 SNOW merge. This clearly has consensus. No reason to keep it open any longer. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Usertalkpage with Template:User page.
Following up from the merge at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 12#Template:User page rounded, I'd like to propose a merge of the talk page version with the user version. Both are exactly the same except for for the small text and link change from a user page to a user talk page. That can easily be handled by automatically detecting what namespace it's placed at. See Template:User page/sandbox as an example. Gonnym (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero:, It will take a week to be finalized (merged). Every nomination takes 1 week. Thank you. Empire AS Talk! 14:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:WNBA player

[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:Basketballstats. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:WNBA player with Template:Basketballstats.
I think this template should be merged with {{Basketballstats}} just like was done with {{NBA player}}. This would allow links to wnba.com and basketball-reference.com to be displayed on one line and standardize templates used for NBA and WNBA player biographies. Some discussion on this matter has occurred at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#External links. --Trialpears (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Category TOC ATC

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 August 5. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Swine-flu-deaths

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is used twice; once on a template and once on an article (and the template is used only once on that same article). Because this number is unlikely to change and easily updated, I propose that this template is substituted and deleted. This would be consistent with our appropriate to other numbers, eg. counts of casualties or wounded in military articles, which do not usually get their own template, particularly if they are only used on a single article. Tom (LT) (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:2009 swine flu genetic table

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 August 6. Primefac (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:2009 flu pandemic in Asia table

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 August 6. Primefac (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:2009 flu pandemic data

[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 subst and delete. No opposition, reasonable arguments. Primefac (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Used once for data about an evolving pandemic (now eclipsed by COVID). I propose substitution and deletion Tom (LT) (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Jehochman Talk 14:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Early complications of trauma

[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:Trauma. Izno (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Early complications of trauma with Template:Trauma.
I propose that this template is replaced and deleted by the trauma template. Most of the content is already on that template.

There are lots of early complications of trauma that aren't mentioned in this navbox, because they have their own templates. For example, infection and fracture of every potential site. And the current contents are a weird mix of entities involving different systems without much to link them (subcut emphysema relating to chest, compartment relating to muscular compartments, contractures which are usually something chronic, etc). I think whatever the template is trying to do is better represented in article space.

I propose deletion because:

  • The content of the template is duplicated in better more comprehensive templates
  • The scope is unclear (what time period is "early"?) and impossibly broad (as mentioned above)
  • For the above reason, I just don't think this template provides helpful navigational value for readers. Tom (LT) (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Rx

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The symbol "℞", sometimes transliterated as "Rx" or "Rx", is recorded in 16th century manuscripts as an abbreviation of the late Latin instruction recipe, meaning 'take thou'.[1][a] Originally abbreviated Rc, the later convention of using a slash to indicate abbreviation resulted in an R with as a straight stroke through its right "leg".[1][b] Medieval prescriptions invariably began with the command to "take" certain materials and compound them in specified ways.[3]

Unused (see below), this template substitutes "Rx" with a better formatted R with a smaller x. Either way, this acronym is incomprehensible to those who aren't in the know (it means "treatment"), which is probably why it's not used. We have no space or size constrains here, so really all text should contain the word "treatment" instead the incomprehensible-to-most-people "Rx"

I have remove the last and only use and propose deletion of the template. Tom (LT) (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Rx" (or character "℞") is a symbol for "medical prescription", not 'treatment' as nom writes. As such it was used in the deletion mentioned [3]. (and, the X is not especially smaller but subscribed i.e. placed more below writing line).
It looks like in 2016 the Unicode character was not rendered well overall, so it was replaced by the html form [4]. However, it is worth researching what the current status is wrt Android.
Keep. Provides consistent format of the symbol troughout enwiki. Unicode symbol can be reintroduced after a check, thereby giving a shortcut to an uncommon unicode character (U+211E ℞ PRESCRIPTION TAKE). I have refrained from re-using it for now, but regular usage is not improbable. -DePiep (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The symbol ℞ renders correctly on my Android 8.1 w/ Chrome 84.0. How far back to we have to support? Is this a Chrome issue rather than an OS issue (given that the Chrome version can be more up to date than the OS on older phones). BTW, the symbol abbreviates "take": for conveninence I have copied the background box from the Prescription article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update to my comment about it being fine in Android 8.1: I see that in Oxymel#Use, a box is shown. This is because of the different font used in that section: font substitution doesn't seem to be working properly. Looks like there is a case for this template after all. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)
As for "abbreviates": no, as a symbol it has taken a standalone meaning, esp. in (English) medicine. The Latin background is for history only. -DePiep (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realise that. My reason to give the origin was to support your response that it has nothing to do with treatment. It is an instruction from the physician to the pharmacist. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All fine. Now could you support such a useful template, making the 'Rx' usage consistent throughout enwiki? ;-) -DePiep (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I also note this is unused in article space, and barely used elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. But what do you think of my comment, keeping a consistent presentation of this symbol enwiki throughout? -DePiep (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I think the template should be deleted. Was that not clear? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After the nomination, arguments were added. This is not clear: what is your response to these arguments? This is not !voting. -DePiep (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I read your arguments, and only then did I make my comment, which is indeed not a vote. Clear now? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not convincing. For example, you wrote "per nom" sec. I still do not see what your objection is to a template for a symbol? (* allowing & simulating consistency between articles, clearly) -DePiep (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b "Definition of Rx". Merriam Webster. 19 December 2019. a 16th-century symbol, the letter R with a line through its slanted leg-the line signaling that the "R" is functioning as an abbreviation.
  2. ^ "Latin verbs: recipere". cactus2000.de. Retrieved 2019-12-19.
  3. ^ Oxford English Dictionary, articles on the letter "R" (sense 14b) and the word "recipe."
  1. ^ Second person singular imperative form of recipere meaning "receive" or "take", thus: "take thou".[2]
  2. ^ Compare with Pound sign#Origin. Transliteration as Rx is ubiquitous but erroneous, it is not an x.
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:Welsh Football League Division Two teamlist

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

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Former league disestablished in Jun 2020 - all clubs move to new leagues in Sept 2020 and no links to previous seasons in template so now redundant template Zanoni (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 11:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Uw-botuhblock

[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. For what it's worth, deleting the template while the blocking policy still holds this to be a valid block type is a little bit of putting the cart before the horse. Just because a block type is rarely used doesn't mean it isn't valid (and therefore shouldn't have its respective block notice). Should the block policy change, of course, there is no prejudice against trying again. Primefac (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very rare template. I've never seen this template appear on any single user talk page. 139.192.206.157 (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_28&oldid=975827455"