Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 7 December 9 >

December 8[edit]

Template:BPP Holdings[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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, only navigates to one article. Unnecessary navbox Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:20, 8 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:BPP University[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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only navigates to one article, the rest are redirects Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:19, 8 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:Table7 January 2019[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; deleted by Iridescent (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Completely pointless templates. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:45, 8 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:Mli[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 2018 December 21. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:37, 21 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:Infobox_baronetage[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:Infobox nobility title or some other suitably named template. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox baronetage with Template:Infobox peerage title.
The baronetage infobox seems to be entirely about a coat of arms (ie arms, crest, motto, supporters), but nothing about the baronetage itself. The peerage infobox has long been able to serve as an infobox for a baronetage; one simply uses the "baronetage" entry (eg Baronetage of England) instead of the peerage (eg Peerage of England). All the other details are basically the same - first holder, current holder, creation date, status, family seat, arms/motto etc. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would note baronetages are not peerages, so "Infobox peerage title" isn't the best name for the resulting template. "Infobox hereditary title" seems too general, as it would include monarchs. Perhaps "Infobox hereditary honour"? --Inops (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Inops: We already have several Coat of Arms templates. I don't know why this one was developed the way it was and they abandoned working on it. I have no problem renaming it "Hereditary title." I like that idea because there are also several other titles that could be used for this (see these positions). I doubt the monarchy would become involved in this infobox. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:02, 11 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) 07:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:54, 8 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:Infobox 400-series highway[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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, redundant to Template:Infobox road. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 06:53, 8 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:Infobox UK feature[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 after each instance is replaced with another more specific Infobox. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archaic markup and geographically-, rather then subject-, focussed. Used on a variety of articles, in each of which it could be replaced by a better, topic-specific templates such as {{Infobox lake}}, {{Infobox river}}, {{Infobox railway}}, {{Infobox park}}, {{Infobox landform}}, {{Infobox building}}, or {{Infobox museum}}. We don't have an equivalent 'feature' infobox for any other country. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So are you seeking prior agreement before making these changes yourself, or what? Thincat (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author I agree that there are some specific templates available but not for everything included. Most, if not all of those templates are too complicated for the average editor. I wanted something simple. I am picking away at the articles that use this and its usage is now below 500. I don't think that deleting it is really going to improve the articles. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:09, 8 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:School of London[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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article School of London describes the term as a "loose movement". This is not a defined set, so not appropriate for a navbox. --woodensuperman 12:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning its existence, merely that the association is not definite, therefore to group "members" in a navbox is inappropriate as sources differ as to who may or may not be included. For example, School of London is not mentioned at Patrick Swift or vice versa. --woodensuperman 16:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Will watch this page to see if WikiProject visual arts members comment. The list of names on the template are listed on the School of London article, but are not sourced. David Hockney, recently in major news items, is listed as a member. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:07, 8 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:Hampden County politicians[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 2018 December 21. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:25, 21 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:Brexit note[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 keep. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON and breaches WP:NPOV as the UK leaving the EU is not a certainty. The date is also wrong, the UK is currently due to leave on 29 March 2019. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think the template itself is a good idea. The date is actually correct in the template, just a typo in the documentation, which took about a second to fix. Either way, one value being incorrect in a template is hardly grounds for deletion. I do not think that this comes close to violating WP:NPOV. This is not advocating one way or another, supporting or opposing Brexit. It is simply saying "when this happens, we need to review the information". Not even pushing for a specific change to the information, just noting that the information will need review. If it would quell your concerns, I think a very simple fix would be to change the template documentation so that instead of saying when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union..., it says IF the United Kingdom leaves the European Union as currently planned.... Additionally since it will only display after the given date (which can be changed in a matter of seconds in the template if the date changes) it doesn't violate WP:TOOSOON. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08: The date, as you say, is a minor thing but as per this discussion: Buckden & the Brexit note, I think the template itself is a contentious thing. Edits like this one and this one are inherently problematic as is the addition of Category:Priority articles for attention after Brexit. Readers do not see it but other editors do. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was intended to be helpful. There are certainly hundreds, maybe thousands of articles which will need adjustment when the United Kingdom and Gibraltar leave the European Union, so I wrote a marker which can flag them up in advance. Some are a greater priority than others of course, which I have tried to reflect. The Category it adds to an article is invisible until 11 pm BST on 29 March 2019, to avoid unnecessary categorisation until it is actually necessary to find and amend the articles. At the point the category appears, to flag up that attention is needed. I added additional functionality, so it is possible to bracket the tag around text that will need deletion (as in the examples which Zackmann08 refers to). That is secondary to tagging the articles.
The point is that when the UK has left the EU, there will be a lot of work to be done finding and amending articles, so doesn't it make sense to be able to mark them in advance?
Most of the articles I tagged were reverted, which disheartened me, as did the fact that no one else took the task on, so I stopped. I still think it is work that should be done, to mark for later the articles that will be affected. LG02 (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see any problem here. This seems to be a case of one editor being bothered by a maintenance category. Not an issue. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08: There are certainly hundreds, maybe thousands of articles which will need adjustment when the United Kingdom and Gibraltar leave the European Union - when? The issue is we don't know if the UK will definitely leave the EU so adding it makes no sense which is why it has been reverted everywhere it was put in July this year e.g. this revert and this reception that the template had, so not just one editor. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree this template is a good idea. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:18, 2 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) 06:01, 8 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:Infobox natural region of Germany[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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should be replaced with {{Infobox region}} Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Apart from the word "region" in the name, these templates have nothing in common. Natural regions in Germany are officially designated from a geographical and geological point of view; they are arranged into levels, types, physiotopes and geochores, each of which has its own parameter in the template, none of which are covered by Infobox:region. The template will eventually link to several hundred designated natural regions.Bermicourt (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bermicourt: the template has been around for a year and a half. So far it has 12 transclusions so I'm very doubtful of your several hundred claim. Whats more, every other geographical region in the world makes use of standard infoboxes, what makes the regions in Germany so special? If it really must have its own custom infobox (which I see nothing to support) then it needs to be standardized to use {{Infobox}}. I will also concede that {{Infobox region}} may not be the best. Perhaps {{Infobox protected area}} would be better. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason it only has twelve inclusions is that when I started creating articles on the natural regions, the template didn't exist (if it survives this deletion proposal in some form, I'm happy to retrospectively add it to the others). There are, however, dozens of officially designated natural regions in Germany all of which could or should have this template or a close English Wiki equivalent (in which case it should be a wrapper as Andy Mabbutt suggests below). The trouble is that I don't see an equivalent, unless we heavily modify Infobox region to cover the parameters that will come across. Infobox protected area is sort of similar; the trouble is that "protected" is the one thing these regions are often not. The nearest equivalent I can think of are the UK's National Character Areas but they aren't as heavily classified and have a 'flat' structure, whereas the German regions have a 7-level hierarchy. Of course we could just not bother with all this and delete the template, but I thought the aim of Wikipedia was to increase human knowledge, not restrict it artificially because of infobox considerations. Bermicourt (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or keep as a subst-only wrapper for a more standard infobox, as we do for all templates with German parameter names (e.g. this one uses |FLAECHE-HA=, |FLAECHE_PRAEFIX=, |FLAECHEREFERENZ=, |FLAECHE-QKM=, |SYSTEMATIK=). {{Infobox protected area}} is a likely contender. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:59, 8 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:Infobox runestone[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:Infobox artifact. Consensus to merge assuming technical feasibility; and of course, as with any merger, it should be done carefully. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox runestone into Template:Infobox artifact.

Largely similar templates. See discussion here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikimandia. Templates are used in different ways and it's confusing to merge them or replace them. It also is not logical in common English to call a runestone an artefact per se. I don't think what is proposed is useful for editors, the articles, or the templates.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • What "different ways"? The claim that "it is not logical in common English to call a runestone an artefact" is false, as a Google search for the two words makes abundantly clear; the very first result, for example, says "We have the Kensington Runestone in our museum. The Runestone and the enduring mystery of its origin continues to be the hallmark of the Runestone Museum. This intriguing artifact was discovered in 1898". The second is for an academic paper titled "The Heavener Rune Stone: A Viking Age Artefact or A Modern Day Creation?". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It does not help editors to make wikipedia more complex by a proliferation of templates that exactly duplicate eachother, varying only by the variable name they use for an ID. There is nothing so special about runestones that they require a dedicated template having runestone_id rather than id as a variable name. There is nothing to be gained by proliferating templates because of a refusal to apprehend valid collective names for sets items, and instead insisting that my special item type has to have a specially named template. There is everything to be gained, in terms of diminishing the learning curve, by the application of general purpose templates that can be applied as widely as possible. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Infobox Templates should help editors simplfy the entry of repetitive commonalities that you want to see at the top of the page, but that are specific to the item on that page, having a separate Infobox template for different types of artifact when much of the information you are including in it remains common with other artifacts is superfluous and adds nothing for our users. There are other, more suitable and more distinctive ways to link information on different pages via other kinds of template or categories where users may want to look at similar artifacts. Mighty Antar (talk) 00:06, 19 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).
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_8&oldid=874801901"