Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 27 March 1 >

February 28

[edit]

Myanmar township templates

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 00:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of red links with no reasonable chance of ever becoming an article. Bot created. The Banner talk 22:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Most of the bluelinked "settlements" are unrelated topics with coincidentally similar names, and many more have been converted to redlinks over the years. Although created in good faith for understandable reasons, they have become a maintenance headache with little benefit to the reader. See also similar nominations on nearby dates. Certes (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2021 (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:Campaignbox Lithuanian–Muscovite War (1368–72)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 17:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation template with three red links that are very unlikely to ever be turned blue as there is not enough info on these battles. What is known is already included in the article about the war. Other language Wikipedias do not have the articles on the battles. Renata (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2021 (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:Use English English

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:Use English English. Izno (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Use English English with Template:Use British English.
There is no difference between "British English" and "English English", so "English English" should be merged and redirected to "British English" template. This would match the redirect we already have for "Welsh English" and "Scottish English" Joseph2302 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2021 (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:OM

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 00:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a copy of {{OMN}}, which produces an Oman flag icon. I don't see redirecting as viable – its title doesn't follow the established pattern for flag icons, and at just two letters long, it's likely to be ambiguous (one plausible former use was for the now deleted {{om}}, another may be for the om symbol). – Uanfala (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly should be a redirect if it is to remain. Per nom, the OM seems obscure, perhaps related to .om url suffix. Nigej (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2021 (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:Wikipedia disambiguation

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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:Disambiguation. Clear consensus that the two templates should be merged. The implementation of namespace detection can be done independently of this close, I presume, since I'm no template expert. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Wikipedia disambiguation into Template:Disambiguation.
These templates serve the same function across different namespaces and can be merged with namespace detection. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For completeness, I mention {{siadn}} which hardly anyone knows about and is currently unused; see Category:Monthly clean-up category (Set index articles with links needing disambiguation) counter. Narky Blert (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike {{disambiguation}}, {{siadn}} does not classify dabs but appears in articles, against bad wikilinks which might be tagged with {{disambiguation needed}} except that the target is not a dab. {{siadn}} used to be widely used but someone has clearly done the work which it requested and only one instance remains: Portal:Bible/Featured chapter/Nehemiah 11, which I tagged in October. If we're being complete then I should mention several specialised templates such as {{Station disambiguation}}, which distinguishes a list of stations from one which happens to contain a few stations amongst other topics. These are useful and I hope they are not within the scope of this TfD (though the redundant {{Letter disambiguation}} is being discussed elsewhere). Certes (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certes no, specialized disambiguations aren't in the scope of this TfD, unless they could be automatically detected from page content - which isn't possible. The reason I nominated this is because it is possible to automatically detect where to use {{Disambiguation}} vs {{Wikipedia disambiguation}}. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:15, 4 March 2021 (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:Composer sidebar

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 17:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now unused; all templates based on this one having been deleted by consensus, in TfDs on September 28, October 5, October 8, December 20, December 28, January 14, January 24, February 7 & February 16. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 28 February 2021 (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).

Myanmar township templates

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 17:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of red links with no reasonable chance of ever becoming an article. Bot created. The Banner talk 11:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Most of the bluelinked "settlements" are unrelated topics with coincidentally similar names, and many more have been converted to redlinks over the years. Although created in good faith for understandable reasons, they have become a maintenance headache with little benefit to the reader. See also similar nominations on nearby dates. Certes (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Renata (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2021 (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:Airreg

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion – I was once a fan of this template, and on one occasion I saved it from a previous delete nomination, [1] but I now think that Airreg is broken beyond repair. Because it relies on external websites supporting direct inks to search result pages (technically, HTTP GET requests), once such websites get redesigned not to do that (HTTP POST, which is currently the norm), this template becomes useless.
These template occurrences used to work: N470A[1], G-APFE[2], C-GAUN[3], PH-LKY[4], but now at best they link to the aviation registry's generic search page where the user has to enter the registration manually (and solve a captcha too), so the original purpose of this template is lost. Considering that template occurrences for the US FAA, UK CAA, and Canada's TSB alone constitute almost the totality of this template's usage, I don't see the point in keeping this template any longer and am happy to remove it from all articles that still use it. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)   —   Following Techie3's intervention below, this template probably deserves a reprieve (even if the UK registry seems lost for good). I can think of a way to reform it to make it more sensible and will post on the template Talk page. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "FAA Registry (N470A)". Federal Aviation Administration.
  2. ^ "G-INFO Database". Civil Aviation Authority.
  3. ^ "Canadian Civil Aircraft Register (C-GAUN)". Transport Canada.
  4. ^ "Civil aircraft register (PH-LKY)". Inspectie Leefomgeving en Transport.
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:Collapse bottom

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Collapse bottom with Template:Hidden archive bottom.
As many of you may know, these are actually the same template with two different names. Their purpose is to transclude the end table tag |} in a way that matches their "top" counterparts ({{Cot}} and {{hat}}). One can be safely redirected to the other without any concerns of incompatibility or breaking things.

For the record, this was kinda/sorta discussed 10 years ago (here) when I was twelve-years-old. Users who participated in that (only sorta) related discussion include: xeno, Martin, and PBS.

As a note to the closer of this discussion; the combined template should be left with this edit notice, this documentation, this talk page, and full protection. Please also make sure the template shortcuts are quickly retargeted to whatever title this ends up with. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:10, 28 February 2021 (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).

Module:PassMath

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 Module:Math. Izno (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Module:PassMath with Module:Math.
A separate module for division is not necessary because the function is within the scope of Module:Math. I would also be okay with deleting Module:PassMath entirely as redundant to the #expr parser function. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The divide function in PassMath is not finished yet. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The functionality of divide is now finished, but it may need to be revised for calling with other than strings. The error semantics of this module is different from Module:Math: PassMath forwards errors generated below, Math always outputs its own errors. Trigenibinion (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge indeed. Redirect/replace & depr is good and harmless.
btw I do not agree with the #expr part, because it is cumbersome oldstyle coding, and out-of-editing-pattern. (Recently I had to spend hours & frustrations looking for a "floor" function, any). But if I understand this correct, this is moot for the merge. -DePiep (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
#expr is beside the point, but because the purpose of the module is to forward any sub-expression errors before attempting the operation. And Module:Math does not do this, so these functions do not belong there. Trigenibinion (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
thx, Trigenibinion. Allow me to skip this tech detail, unless I should rethink my !vote logic ;-) Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2021 (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:Stadium organists

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 2021 March 9. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2021 (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 disputed islands

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. — The Earwig (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox disputed islands with Template:Infobox islands.
Essentially the same scope for the primary geographic parameter set (which I haven't analyzed but I would assume that the main template is a superset), the ownership of these islands is just kind of tacked on. Whether a territory is disputed should be a facet of the territory itself rather than its own infobox. Izno (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Infobox islands, no reason to separate, however I do think that the disputed island template is pretty cluttered and needs to be simplified. Like "country_claim_largest_city_population" is pretty unnecessary to add to something that is about the island and not the country claiming it. PyroFloe (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per PyroFloe. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: per PyroFloe. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{Infobox disputed islands}} for the same reasons as previously mentioned in the last nomination (which wasn't linked here for whatever reason). To quote a number of the reasons given last time, as they still apply:
    "well-defined subset of articles with special requirements. Island box doesn't support the crucial "claimed by" fields." (Future Perfect at Sunrise)
    "That they are islands is secondary (and superfluous IMO) to their status as disputed territory." (Int21h)
    "It is absolutely not redundant. Before I decided to create this template, I tried to come up with a good way to incorporate it into the regular islands infobox template, but I could come up with a way to do so due to the reasons already mentioned above. I spent a lot of time researching how to do this and trying to figure out the best way to do it. There's really no efficient way to merge these templates." (Me)
  • I will say that I'm open to some sort of Lua module addition that incorporates and streamlines the functions of this template, though I don't know how to do that myself. However, as I mentioned the last time this template was nominated here (and contrary to the opinions expressed by PyroFloe and Izno), there are (currently) many reasons to keep this template separate, foremost among them the fact that the disputed nature of the territory is usually the thing that gives the territory its notability. Most disputes are decades or centuries long, and most of the places using this template are uninhabited (or barely inhabited). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate. It's not just because this template needs to cover additional pieces of information compared to the standard islands box (those could obviously be merged into the generic template). It's more because some of the same pieces of information that the generic box also supports need to be presented differently – e.g., info about administrative parent divisions need to be integrated into the several "claimed by..." groups. If that were to be merged properly it would lead to an enormous piece of conditional clutter, which would presumably make the resulting super-box even harder to maintain. I just don't see the benefit in that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2021 (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:State results of the 2020 U.S. presidential election

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. It might be worth looking at US election templates as a group - is there a "happy medium" to where there are a reasonable number of concise templates without being bloated (either in number or in content)? Right now there is no consensus for this particular template, but participants indicated that the "issue" is not solely relegated to the 2020 templates. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The pages are already linked on {{2020 United States elections}}. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2021 (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:Russia–United States proxy conflict

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 17:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template is infrequently used and many of the articles listed are not related to the concept of the proxy conflict between Russian and the United States. The category with the same name as the template was deleted. The redirect page should be deleted as well. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2021 (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:China–United States proxy conflict

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 17:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the Russia-United States proxy conflict template; should be deleted because it is infrequently used, articles listed are not related to the concept of the proxy conflict. Some of which include before the U.S. and China reestablished relations in the 1970s when Nixon visited China. Those conflicts have nothing to do with a proxy conflict between China and the United States. Its former category of the same name was deleted as well. The redirect page should also be deleted. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2021 (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/2021_February_28&oldid=1146012799"