Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 3 January 5 >

January 4

[edit]

Template:TFL title

[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) 06:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not used or supported. Only three dates in 2011 were manually created (Template:TFL title/June 27, 2011, Template:TFL title/June 13, 2011, Template:TFL title/June 20, 2011). Seems like it was never actually implemented properly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:18, 4 January 2019 (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:Macau University of Science and Technology

[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) 06:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless navbox. It is currently a sea of redlinks, with only one navigable link.
Maybe coverage of Macau University of Science and Technology will some day expand so massively that we will have a separate article on every element of this fine university ... but until then this navbox is not needed. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 4 January 2019 (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:Eurovision Song Contest 2020

[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) 07:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon. NENAN. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 14:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several countries have shown interest for Eurovision 2020, some national selections are already being prepared and it will only get closer, it seems reasonable to keep it. Goprake (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2019 (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:Cslist

[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) 07:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Module:Cslist with Module:List.
Modules sharing exact same function, except Module:List has more features. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support sounds like a sensible merge. --RexxS (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On closer inspection it turns out that Module:List doesn't share exactly the same function in two ways: (1) it uses a hard-coded div to enclose the list, which causes problems with inline display; and (2) it uses inline CSS to style the lists, rather than using the much preferable WP:TemplateStyles. Unless the intention is to upgrade these features of Module:List at the time of the merger, it doesn't seem sensible to me to downgrade the functionality of Template:Cslist in an attempt to jam together two disparate modules. Here are the illustrations:
  • {{cslist | first item | second item | third item | etc}} →
    • first item
    • second item
    • third item
    • etc
  • {{#invoke:List |horizontal | first item | second item | third item | etc}} →
    • first item
    • second item
    • third item
    • etc
  • {{#invoke:List |horizontal |style="display:inline-block;" | first item | second item | third item | etc}} →
    • first item
    • second item
    • third item
    • etc
Therefore Oppose for now. It would be nice to have modules that perform multiple functions, but not at the expense of losing functionality. --RexxS (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems ripe for a merger in which the product conforms to the result described by RexxS. I don't have the technical knowledge to edit modules, but perhaps someone else who does can assist here? --Bsherr (talk) 02:13, 27 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) 08:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and take to WP:VPT. Two relists and one "this sounds wise" comment in more than two weeks...I doubt we're going to get much further useful input even if this stays open a lot longer. If people at VPT agree on something, you can renominate the template and copy into the new discussion what RexxS and Bsherr said, and you can include input from VPT. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2019 (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).

Phillippines Men's Basketball Squad templates

[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) 05:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally opening per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 26#Template:Iran squad 2014 Asian Games; ping to Pkbwcgs. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:14, 4 January 2019 (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:Terminus

[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) 07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's just as simple to actually type the desired text than to use a specialized template. If consistently deployed to existing exit or junction lists in articles, using this extra template could trigger template limits. Imzadi 1979 → 04:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete. I get why someone might want to use a template, but this seems to be a solution looking for a problem. I was going to suggest any instances get substed out first, but there don't seem to be any transclusions. –Fredddie™ 05:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I didn't immediately see a problem, since it saves a little space and enforces uniformity to a small extent, but your comment about WP:TLIMIT overrides that: we shouldn't be using really simple templates on pages where we often come close to surpassing the limits, and if that's basically their only use, we should delete those simple templates. Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless use of a template! and per above rationales --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2019 (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:Medal "For Courage"

[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) 07:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused and not needed. Frietjes (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unused --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addit - struck out earlier comment. Keep. I think Nyttend makes a good point. As these are part of a series, and within the series several are used, I think it is worthwhile keeping these given they do serve a useful purpose. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I can tell, they're intended for use in recipients' articles, basically as a way of simplifying the use of ribbon images while providing a convenient link. The image for Odessa is in use at several articles, e.g. Semyon Budyonny and Ivan Bagramyan, and I suspect all of the others are in use as well; the Budyonny article, in particular, uses a lot of them. Looks to me as if these could easily be de-orphaned. Whether they're needed in the first place should not be discussed here, since these aren't apparently different from other medal templates that aren't here nominated; if you mean that they ought to be deleted even if a use is found, a bigger discussion will be needed. Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 19 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) 02:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2019 (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:Underpopulated category

[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. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to question the usefulness of tagging categories with this template. I suspect that there are a few dozen categories which could benefit by the placement of this tag, but there are over 15,000 categories that have it with little effort being done by other editors to bring the number down. This was nominated for deletion nearly 12 years ago with a resounding consensus to keep, but that was only after a few years of existence and probably thousands of fewer categories tagged with it. I brought this up recently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Category:Underpopulated categories and learned this was brought up a couple years ago as well at Category talk:Underpopulated categories#What is the point of this?.

  • Repeating some of the issues:
  1. Categories get tagged but the tag rarely gets removed when the category gets populated
  2. Tagging is often inappropriate. A category could have 3 or 4 articles in it, but it's often the case that no other candidates exist to populate it further.
  3. Tags have been found on categories that have numerous articles via a diffused subcategory scheme.
  4. It only seems like a few category creators who tend to add the tag to nearly every category they create with the expectation that other editors will populate it (or not realizing or not caring that it can't be populated further).
  5. Often times, the more appropriate tag would be {{category diffuse}} to a parent category to populate a new or expanded scheme of subcategories, rather than use the underpopulated tag in each of the child categories.

The intent of the tag is to inform other editors that the category needs more articles added to it. First off, why is that important? Secondly, why is the tag being added? If there are known missing articles, the person who added the tag probably has a better idea what's missing than someone who happens to come across it by chance. Thirdly, based on how long some of these tags have remained (some as early as 2006), there aren't editors willing to populate the categories. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (preliminarily, unless good rationale for keeping below). Our primary purpose is to serve as an encyclopedia, ie. in the creation of articles, not to act as a directory (WP:NOT). I don't think it's helpful to this or the encyclopedia to add extra expected work (adding tag, filling categories, removing tag) that is at most tangential to this purpose. The nominator also makes some good points - tags do not seem to drive articles being added to categories, and they are often added inappropriately and widely. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without the detailed explanation, I would have said "do you have a clue what you're suggesting", but in addition to demonstrating that you have a clue, you've demonstrated that this template just isn't that useful. To build on what you've said: how does one easily start with a category and find articles to put into it? If it's as easy as using a list of existing links, someone can use that list instead of tagging with this template; if you don't have a pre-existing list, it's a lot harder. Other potential problems with category size, like the ones {{category diffuse}} and {{MetaCat}} are meant to prevent, are visible from the category's contents and can be fixed basically from there with Catalot, but with this template you won't even notice the problem unless you're aware of the category and likely to use it already: if you're just on an article page, you won't know that a template has been placed on a specific category that the article's in, let alone that it's been placed on a specific category that the article's not in. Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have a lot of things to do here but deleting one of the tools we have for finding our gaps won't help. If the template is misused, we need to make it clear on the documentation how to use it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So let's keep a tag that no one uses to identify and add articles to such tagged categories. It is not useful period, not just because it's being used inappropriately. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you actually go through the categories in Category:Underpopulated categories and add articles to them until there is enough to remove the tag? The number of categories tagged has increased by the thousands over the past few years. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and I have added the related template for stubs to the nomination and am notifying WikiProject stub sorting. As the other !voters have hinted above, I don't know what to do with these Templates. How few articles makes a category underpopulated? And if somewhere in Category:Underpopulated categories I come across such a tagged category, how do I find articles to put into it? (Help:Category#How to find articles for a category, which is on the Category's page, links to a help page section that no longer exists.) And most fundamentally, why is such a category even a bad thing to have in the encyclopedia? UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the template for underpopulated stubs serves a different purpose and should be nominated separately from this discussion. This TfD has been open for a few days and earlier comments are based on the one template. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, moving the stub template to its own nomination. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2019 (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/2019_January_4&oldid=878325932"