Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 October 24

< October 23	October 25 >

October 24

Template:Geobox/type/valley

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. There is consensus to delete this page, which is a documentation page, nothing more. For changes to Template:Geobox, please code them up at Template:Geobox/sandbox and make an edit request at Template talk:Geobox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geobox/type/valley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, and unused according to Category:Geobox usage tracking for valley type. Deletion would require removing the relevant call(s) from {{Geobox}} or its subtemplate(s). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:48, 28 October 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:Mayors of Canadian Provincial and Territorial Capitals

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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mayors of Canadian Provincial and Territorial Capitals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template of questionable necessity. There's nothing inherently special about being the mayor of a city that happens to be a provincial or territorial capital -- this simply doesn't constitute a unified group of people who have any noteworthy linkages to each other on this basis. Much, much more useful and relevant would be a "big city mayors" template, inclusive of major non-capital cities like Vancouver and Calgary and Montreal -- some of the mayors in this template would still be in that one too, granted, while others would not. But if a cross-Canada mayoral template is desired, John Tory and Jim Watson need contextual links to bigshots like Valérie Plante and Gregor Robertson (→ Kennedy Stewart in December) and Naheed Nenshi far more than they would ever need links to Lisa Helps or Clifford J. Lee or Madeleine Redfern, because the "big city mayors" axis is a lot more important in the Canadian context than the "mayors of cities that happen to be capitals" axis. And no, just because the US has one of these doesn't mean Canada automatically needs one too — I can't speak to whether there's something in American political culture that makes "mayors of state capitals" inherently noteworthy as a group or not, but there's certainly nothing in Canadian political culture that does so. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. The only common linkage I can think of is due to the fact that, unlike our southern [I don't think we can say "neighbour" any more], capitals of Canadian provinces also tend to be the largest cities in those provinces by a fair margin (Edmonton, Regina and Fredericton are all second- or third-largest; only Victoria is significantly smaller). But even that is just an underlying statistic, not a unifying factor or defining characteristic of the individuals. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:33, 25 October 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).

Module:Italian provinces

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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Italian provinces (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Module:Data {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've written versions that use Module:Data instead of this module in the sandbox of all of the Template:ProvinciaIT subpages. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Module creator here. Fine by me, but can you correct the script errors on the template pages. And where do you plan to move Module:Italian provinces/data if this module is deleted? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to keep it where it is, as that seems to be the general convention for modules accessed using Module:Data. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see why correcting the script errors is necessary; they are the result of passing an invalid region to Module:Data, which the template is doing (it is not passing one). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not good to keep it as a subtemplate of a deleted template. Better may be to move it to a subtemplate of Module:Data. And the errors are unsightly and may suggest to people that there is a problem with the template, even though there isn't. And it is better not to pollute Category:Pages with script errors. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: please can you attend to above two concerns noted above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both of your concerns are normal editing procedure, not something that needs to be handled as part of the TfD (given that they are possible by includeonlying the template and moving the module; I'm not sure what name it should have). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to keep relisting this item. I was only asking Pppery to do some basic cleaning up of his code, which apparently he is not willing to do. This is disappointing, especially for a template editor. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:29, 31 October 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:The 10 largest stars by radius

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) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The 10 largest stars by radius (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Uncited template that doesn't even match the list that it is based on. Even a user said that it uses obsolete radii to lazily get VY Canis Majoris and VV Cephei A to the top. 2407:7000:A269:8200:1D14:E2BA:760:EBBE (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for people at WT:ASTRONOMY to comment — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An invitation for edit wars. It's not like we have a ruler we can apply, uncertainties are so large that trying to come up with a "10 largest" is an exercise in cherry-picking from ambiguous data. Even without that ambiguity, the list would be ever-changing as observations come in. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not just for the reasons above but I find it utterly useless. Besides, why there should be 10 and not 25? Or 100? It sounds more like material for a trivia article than a template. Psyluke (talk) 11:09, 1 November 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:Iowa Barnstormers 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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iowa Barnstormers seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Already included in Template:Iowa Barnstormers. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom Hhkohh (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:48, 28 October 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).