Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 22

< December 21	December 23 >

December 22

Template:Linha do Sul stations

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. WP:REFUND may be requested once the articles linked in the navbox are created. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Linha do Sul stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Parent article does not exist; only one article in navbox exists. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No navigational value. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm currently working on creating the parent article, as well as the navbox articles, just as I'm doing with Template:Linha do Algarve stations Trinaliv (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Trinaliv: That doesn't change the fact that the template as it stands doesn't help in navigating articles like a navbox is supposed to. If you would like a readily-accessible list of articles to create, you're welcome to move the template to something like User:Trinaliv/sandbox, or another part of your user space until it is ready for inclusion in the encyclopedia. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cymru.lass: Agreed. Delete for now, I'll reupload it when the individual articles have been created. Trinaliv (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Trinaliv: When you're ready and have created more of the articles, you can follow the steps at WP:REFUND to get the template code back, or you can ask now that it be moved to User:Trinaliv/sandbox or User:Trinaliv/Linha do Sul stations for you to have ready. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Trinaliv: Thanks, I'll get it back through WP:REFUND Trinaliv (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:41, 23 December 2018 (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:Reduce trivia

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:Reduce trivia keeping the old template as a redirect for short-name ease of typing. Primefac (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reduce trivia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Trivia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Reduce trivia with Template:Trivia.
These templates are similar enough that a single template could cover both matters. They have roughly equal numbers of transclusions, but the latter has a more straightforward name. Since the messages are slightly different and both have reasonable complaints, a merge is preferable to replacement or deletion. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep separate. Normally, I'm a fan of such merges, but in this case the only similarity is that they both contain the word "trivia". {{Reduce trivia}} is about an article-wide (or, with a parameter, section-wide) WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE problem; {{Trivia}} is about pop-culture lists, and converting them to prose (usually also with some compressing out of trivia). The former is a general encyclopedic-focus template, the latter a MOS:LIST cleanup one. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Seems fairly straightforward, both have he same aim of reducing indiscriminate lists of factoids. It seems that most reasonable uses of {{trivia}} could be replaced with a {{reduce trivia}} with the |section= parameter. But if the {{trivia}} is located at the top of the article, it may need to be moved to the offending section. That may make implementation of a merge more difficult. Presented with evidence that this is an insurmountable problem, I will readily change my !vote. YBG (talk) 10:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Both templates serve the same purpose and the latter of the two is worded more appropriately. Ajf773 (talk) 19:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or better, replace and delete with the single "Trivia" template. As per above rationale - templates have the same intention. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, although use of this template is rarely done properly. Better to perhaps delete and create a new template for pop culture, since these are almost always added to a list of pop culture references. It might be, well, trivial, and not worth including that some episode of some TV show mentioned the topic, but a collection of uses in pop culture isn't indiscriminate or miscellaneous facts - it has a very clear topic tying the section together. These templates were meant for facts about a topic that are better suited elsewhere in the article, many of which do belong, just merged into the prose. PaulGS (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2018 (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:DYKissues

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 January 1. Primefac (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DYKissues (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).

Template:Bali United F.C. seasons

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bali United F.C. seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

folk of {{Bali United F.C.}} but {{Bali United F.C. seasons}} was created earlier than {{Bali United F.C.}} so deleting directly without discussion is improper to me Hhkohh (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hhkohh I don't mind if you want to delete it as seasons of Bali United is also mentioned in {{Bali United F.C.}}. So go on ahead. Wira rhea (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wira rhea, I do not think we should delete {{Bali United F.C.}} because that template is a standard template and there is no reason to delete {{Bali United F.C.}} Hhkohh (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hhkohh, no no no, I mean that I don't mind if you want to delete {{Bali United F.C. seasons}}, not {{Bali United F.C.}}. Wira rhea (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

okay and thanks for clarifying Hhkohh (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2018 (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:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch

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. NPASR Primefac (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The project behind this template has been inactive for years it seems. I'd have suggested redirecting it to the Sexuality and Sexology WP banner if it weren't for the fact that most articles (all?) this is on appear to already have that banner too. Thus I think deleting it and removing all transclusions would probably be the best option. Ipatrol (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch is deleted, considering that several inactive and/or defunct WikiProjects still have in-use talk page banner templates such as this one. Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except I don't think any of those projects were basically absorbed by another, active WikiProject. --Ipatrol (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2018 (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:User alto-1

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 procedural close. Wrong venue. Userboxen go to WP:MFD.. (non-admin closure) SD0001 (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User alto-1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per the rest of Category:Vocal range templates we don't apply levels to vocal ranges (and there's a separate vocalist-1 etc for overall singing ability) Le Deluge (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2018 (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).