Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 14 May 16 >

May 15

[edit]

Template:Contains Akan text

[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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This template was only used on Ghana national football team, but I've removed it there because there were (AFAIK) no Akan special characters on that page. Also, as far as I can find (we don't have a lot of info about the Akan alphabet onwiki), the Akan language only uses Latin characters and some IPA symbols, which are probably well supported on almost all platforms. rchard2scout (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:55, 15 May 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:Contains Ashanti text

[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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Contains Akan text. Barely used, and the only special characters that this language uses are the "open o" (`ɔ`) and epsilon (`ɛ`), which are part of IPA and generally well-supported. rchard2scout (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:55, 15 May 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:MoreInfo

[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. (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 21:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:MoreInfo, Template:Notsure, Template:Investigating and Template:LEG? with Template:Question.
This set of templates all feature a blue question mark inside a blue circle with some text. {{Question}} offers the option to customize the text, as such there really is no reason why there should be a different template for every variation of text anyone can think of, when it can be done with {{Question|label=foo}}. Gonnym (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We still use all of these templates at SPI (except LEG? and Question). I don't see an issue with keeping shorthand templates, might as well remove {{=}} and use HTML syntax directly. The key differentiator is user experience. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's just pointless having the same exact template 5 times in this example (there are others of this kind with even more). Just write what you want in the free-form text like any other template is made to work. This system just leads to endless versions. --Gonnym (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @QEDK: You said We still use all of these templates at SPI, but that is inaccurate. {{moreinfo}} is the only one that has been used at SPI. However, this doesn't appear to affect the rest of your point. eπi (talk | contribs) 16:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still more comments needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. {{moreinfo}} is used frequently at SPI. LEG? seems to be a very specialized template for List of Ediacaran genera. Overall, I don't see any harm in keeping these around – merging them seems to create more work than it saves. Mz7 (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We use {{moreinfo}} at SPI. Agree with Mz7 that this creates a lot of work for mergers and for those who code our SPI page and scripts. Katietalk 14:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with one caveat {{LEG?}} merits separate discussion as part of a set of 4 similar unused subst-only templates; I'll open a TfD after this one is closed, if no one else beats me to it. For the other four, here's the number of direct transclusions:
  • {{notsure}} and {{investigating}} are rarely used, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're worth deleting. I suppose we could go back and replace all the transclusions with {{question|label=Not sure.}} and {{question|label=Investigating}}, but I don't think template simplification outweighs the costs of disturbing already-completed discussions or denying these options to future users. {{moreinfo}} should clearly remain a separate template. eπi (talk | contribs) 12:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{moreinfo}} for the reasons already stated by others. Also, that stupid "considered for merging" message is appearing at SPI, and it's ugly. Someone should close this discussion--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 30 May 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:Other uses2

[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 Module:Other uses. Primefac (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Module:Other uses2 with Module:Other uses.
If there really needs to two templates for this, then this module should be handled as another function inside Module:Other uses. Gonnym (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this needs a bit more input on how a merger/offboarding-of-purpose ought to take place
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 15 May 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:Design-EU

[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 redirect to Template:Intellectual property laws of the European Union. No opposition, template content has been merged. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Design-EU with Template:Intellectual property laws of the European Union.
Overlapping templates. {{Intellectual property laws of the European Union}} was just recently merged with {{Trademark-EU}} per this TfD for the same reasons. Gonnym (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't know much about the topic area, but since the intellectual property rights template has a section for design rights already, having a separate small design rights navbox seems superfluous. I did a spot-check and added the one missing link Hague Agreement from {{Design-EU}} to {{Intellectual property laws of the European Union}}. eπi (talk | contribs) 00:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs a bit more commentary
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 15 May 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:32TeamBracket-Compact-NoSeeds

[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 replacement. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Folk of {{32TeamBracket-Compact|seeds=no}} Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A bit more input is needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:48, 15 May 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:Transit visibility table

[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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All but four of the 28 non-header articles were deleted by AfD in 2016. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm neutral on this one but you might want to check whatever tool you used to emplace the Deletion Notice as it messed up the link to this discussion. I've fixed it but you might also like to check any other templates you've nominated just in case. —Phil | Talk 14:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 15 May 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:Infobox Venezuelan municipality

[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. And replace with {{Infobox settlement}} beforehand Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replace and delete

Municipality-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.

Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country".

States, towns, villages etc. already transclude {{Infobox settlement}} directly. 78.55.48.101 (talk) 08:19, 15 May 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:Infobox townlands

[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 replacement with {{Infobox settlement}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replace and delete

Northern Ireland townland-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions, on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.

Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country".

Counties, towns, villages etc. already transclude {{Infobox settlement}} directly.

Visualisation of Northern Ireland place infobox usage
Infobox usage on articles about places in Northern Ireland

89.12.139.236 (talk) 13:33, 15 May 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_May_15&oldid=1138372731"