Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 8

< April 7	April 9 >

April 8

Template:Category description

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G8 by Mackensen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Category description (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This existed to place categories into the maintenance category Category:Categories lacking a description, but that has just been deleted per CfD March 29. At that point in time it was transcluded onto two category pages, for which I provided a description today. – Fayenatic London 22:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see this being used for potentially confusingly named categories, or categories being used under restricted definitions, thereby needing a description to explain the situation. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if a bot were auto-populating categories that have no description with this template and placing them in a maintenance category, that would be useful. But since the category is gone, this template does seem useless, so weak delete. --B (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G8, dependent on a nonexistant or deleted category. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:55, 12 April 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Royal Ontario Museum iconic objects

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Royal Ontario Museum iconic objects (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is an adjunct to an Afd nomination for Royal Ontario Museum Iconic Objects. Both are simply derived from a booklet published by the museum itself and have attracted no external notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The articles are all related under a valid grouping. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The template is no different than those used by other museums to group together articles related to thier individual collections. As stated above, the articles are all related and therefore the grouping makes sense. AngelKelley (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Greek religion

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greek religion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ancient Greek religion navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Greek religion with Template:Ancient Greek religion navbox.
These two navboxes considerably overlap by scope, though largely containing links to different articles. They should therefore be merged and/or completely reorganized in scope. PanchoS (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: overlap between these two boxes is clear. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Per nominator's rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Both navigation boxes cover the same subject. Dimadick (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Neutrality^talk 04:48, 17 April 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Translation attribution

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Translation attribution (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP Medicine version of deleted {{Maintained}} that was deleted per the consensus in this discussion, and is similar to this discussion. Also not used on a single page. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC) ^{Add at 21:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

No this template was for giving attribution for people who may not have made edits directly to Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with the other discussion. The template is not actually for use on En Wikipedia but for use on other languages. Thus will move to my work space. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, unused. Frietjes (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This template is used on English Wikipedia to explain projects on other Wikipedias. It is not even being used in live space, so it certainly is not misused in live space, but if it were used in live space, then that would be fine too.

I fail to recognize how this template is being used in a similar way to those others, and because it is not like the others, I am not persuaded by the deletion argument. In the case of the others, the template purports to direct users to a particular user who offers subject matter expertise. In the case of this template, users are directed to people who managed support functions which have no clear relationship to the facts presented in the article, except that one person has claimed to have translated those facts for a new audience and another person copypasted those facts from elsewhere to here.

This template is filling a gap in supplying a method for giving attribution of copyrighted content from off-wiki to on Wiki. Wikipedia's software infrastructure currently has no native functions for giving attribution to contributors who do not have Wikipedia accounts, and whose contributions are integrated into Wikipedia by others. Likewise, when the support volunteers copypaste someone else's work into Wikipedia, the native software implies that they are copyright holders of what they contributed, which is not going to be correct in the cases when this template is used.

This template has low potential for abuse. It is unlike the other ones. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed this with the copyright folk? How do non-users waive their rights? In private communication with you? Alakzi (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per BlueRasberry's excellent and incisive critique of the severely flawed logic of this nomination. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- While the nomination may be "flawed", if the template is not used, why is it needed? By the way, I don't know if we have the ability to do so here, but I know for other Wikipedias, when they port something over from English to translate, the article history comes with it. So there are languages that I show up as having edited even though I have never been there and that's because they copied the history from here. That seems like a better way to do it than to have a talk page template with a reference to a contribution history on another wiki that might get moved or deleted. But even if this is the best methodology to be used, it seems that (1) if the template isn't used, it may not be needed and (2) if the template is needed, there should be a generic one that can be used for articles in all disciplines rather than separate ones for each discipline that someone has to maintain. --B (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite the last line to say, "If you would like to help, please do! Add your name here if you like and are helping." Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:29, 11 April 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Multihulls

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2015 April 26. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Multihulls (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Trimarans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Sailing competition result

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was redirect "Sailing competition result" to "Medal". Please feel free to continue the merger discussion on the medal template talk page, but given the lack of transclusions of "Sailing competition result", I will simply redirect it for now. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sailing competition result (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Medal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Sailing competition result with Template:Medal.
Redundant to the other template. Same function, less usage. Smartskaft (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose whatever The functionality is not the same between the named templates! In medal the function is limited to the gold, silver and bronze. This is not always sufficient! e.g. when you want to record a place on the world ranking list of a certain year. So NOT redundant!_/)_/)_/) ˷˷˷˷˷˷˷˷ _/) NED33^talk 18:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do not oppose merging the functionality of these templates. I must say, however, that the medal graphics of the sailing results template are far more attractive and far more space efficient than those presently used by the generic medal templates. I think we should seriously consider adopting the sailing graphics for the generic template. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alakzi: Can you take a look at these templates in light of my suggestion above, and see if this is a viable option? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first positional parameter of {{Sailing competition result}} can take any value; the medal icon is not part of the template. {{Medal}} is not functionally redundant to {{Sailing competition result}}, so long as it restricts the |type= of medal to one of nine predefined options. {{Medal}} allows for some terminological variation (e.g. "runner-up", "silver", and "second"), which would be lost if we were to use the icons. We'd also need to ponder the fate of "disqualified" and "playoffs", which would - presumably - be rid of their distinguishing background colour for the sake of visual harmony. Finally, there remains the question whether places beyond third belong inside medal boxes. Alakzi (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Having examined the coding and template options, I can see now that the medal icons are not tied to the "Sailing competition result" template, but were separate icon templates inserted within the first parameter. The easiest question to answer is your last: no, we should not include results beyond the first three in the infobox "medals table"; the medals table was never intended to list every result, only the highlights and top finishes of an athlete's elite career. I am certain we could find background coloring or other graphic device to account for the relatively rare occurrence of "disqualified" -- the current pink background is less than ideal. I am unfamiliar with the "playoffs" option mentioned by you above, and will have to research its present use (if any). As for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and runner-up options, I would be grateful if you could create tracking categories so we can see how they are presently being used. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Maybe upmerge would have been a better naming for my suggestion. The parameters are not exactly the same, however the design of the |type= parameter of {{Sailing competition result}} only encourages inclusion of results beyond top-three that are cluttering the infobox. Smartskaft (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Merge regardless. We can figure out the minutiae on Medal's talk page. Alakzi (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        For me the main thing is that it is not only limited to 'Medals' unmerge, merge, takeover, special to sailing or not or whatever. But that other competition like a year ranking or places lower that 3 can be showed. A beter name could maybe be "template:Palmarès"._/)_/)_/) ˷˷˷˷˷˷˷˷ _/) NED33^talk 16:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support manual replacement with {{Medal}} variations rather than merging, as this is effectively a way of getting anything into the medal templates. Call me old fashioned, but I think we should be actively limiting people's options to medals in an infobox designed specifically for medals which has the header "medals". I also think the move to the numbered images over the written ones is a good one (and a wonderfully bold change at that!). SFB 19:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one of the reasons Template:Sailing competition result was created. Not to put them on medal but in a wider template._/)_/)_/) ˷˷˷˷˷˷˷˷ _/) NED33^talk 05:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now? In the mean time many entries are messed up due to the extra text added to the template. _/)_/)_/) ˷˷˷˷˷˷˷˷ _/) NED33^talk 11:43, 22 April 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Sailing competitor for

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was redirect "Sailing competitor for" to "MedalCountry". Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sailing competitor for (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:MedalCountry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Sailing competitor for with Template:MedalCountry.
Redundant to the other template. Same function, less usage. Smartskaft (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose whatever The functionality is not the same between the named templates! In medal the function is limited to the gold, silver and bronze. This is not always sufficient! e.g. when you want to record a place on the world ranking list of a certain year. So NOT redundant!_/)_/)_/) ˷˷˷˷˷˷˷˷ _/) NED33^talk 18:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, this template is exactly the same as Template:MedalCountry. Smartskaft (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And could be redirected. Smartskaft (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge with {{Medal}}, which is intended to replace MedalCountry and has same function of one parameter. SFB 19:20, 17 April 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Sailing competition

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, sailing competition, since it's not being used. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sailing competition (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:MedalCompetition (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Sailing competition with Template:MedalCompetition.
Redundant to the other template. Same function, less usage. Smartskaft (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose whatever The functionality is not the same between the named templates! In medal the function is limited to the gold, silver and bronze. This is not always sufficient! e.g. when you want to record a place on the world ranking list of a certain year. So NOT redundant!_/)_/)_/) ˷˷˷˷˷˷˷˷ _/) NED33^talk 18:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The template is currently not in use in the main namespace. Smartskaft (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Second level domain

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Second level domain (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Was used to store the intro of Second-level domain. No longer used by any articles. Mortein | Talk 07:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

subst and delete templates are not used to store portions of articles, article content should not be hidden in templatespace. As this was already substed... -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Disagree & Template:Agree

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2015 April 26. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disagree (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Agree (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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). No further edits should be made to this section.