Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 5

< April 4	April 6 >

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. Primefac (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Population clocks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused except for a link from Wikipedia:Guide to Scribbling, as a "real but more complex module". Well, it isn't a real module if it was created and is used purely as an example. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It might be useful as a tutorial example for people to look at, as it's a more realistic version than the code in the tutorial itself. It doesn't seem like it hurts anything to leave it. Kaldari (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kaldan; example module in modulespace -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does Module:Example not fill the role of an example module? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – unnecessary example module. --Soumyabrata ^{stay at home} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from coronavirus} 12:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - would potentially cause issues with the guide itself, so I'm hesitant to say it should be removed. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 16:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirbanzo: Could you please explain how removing the trivial mention of this module from the guide would "cause issues"? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thought there was also a transclusion. Changing to Delete as a result. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 18:24, 7 April 2020 (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:Campaign medals of the Honourable East India Company

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. There are some apparent unresolved issues in merging the templates and no consensus as to their resolution. Neither is there a consensus on the question of whether or not to merge generally, and discussion seems to have gone quiet. (non-admin closure) Bsherr (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaign medals of the Honourable East India Company (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:British campaign medals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Campaign medals of the Honourable East India Company with Template:British campaign medals.
I am aware that this has been discussed by the creator at Template talk:Campaign medals of the Honourable East India Company. However, as later nationally recognised, why couldn't this simply be collected in one single template? PPEMES (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but a few issues: The earliest HEIC medals for: Deccan; Mysore; Capture of Ceylon; Egypt; Capture of Rodrigues etc; Java; Nepal; Burma and Coorg were awarded exclusively to Indian troops – British Army troops serving alongside them did not receive the medal. Therefore to class them as British campaign medals seems wrong. I note that the British campaign medals template has separate sections for '19th Century', 'First World War' etc. One option would be to add a section for 'East India Company medals only awarded to Indian troops'. The Seringapatam medal, that was also awarded to British soldiers, could be added to the main list. Or, of course, one could leave the templates as they are... Happy to see what others think. Hsq7278 (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. British campaign medals is already massive. The Honourable East India Company and its army are notable enough to be separate from generic British medals. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Wikimandia. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:30, 5 April 2020 (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 gunpowder plotter

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 criminal. Seems like we have reasonable arguments on both sides, but so as long as headcounts matter this looks like a consensus for a merge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox gunpowder plotter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox criminal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox gunpowder plotter with Template:Infobox criminal.
Surely this merits consideration? PPEMES (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Used on only 14 biographies (where it is redundant to either {{Infobox criminal}} or {{Infobox person}}) and one event (where it is redundant to {{Infobox event}}; or possibly {{Infobox civil conflict}}). We have, AFAICT, no other infobox which is used in this fashion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appropriately scoped for this particular limited series of articles, don't see a benefit to merging. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nikkimaria. See no benefit to merging. userdude 23:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: @UserDude: Would you mind indicating what variable in Infobox gunpowder plotter can absolutely not be included in Infobox criminal and why, please? PPEMES (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, it looks like details, participants, plot, result, role, enlisted, and captured. It would be entirely inappropriate to add multiple extra parameters to a template used in 4,000 articles just to accommodate a specialised template used in only 13. --RexxS (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How can we be so sure that these variables would not be helpful also in application in other articles? PPEMES (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Please see MOS:INDENTMIX)

Because if they were, somebody would have asked for them before now. And if they were helpful also in application in other articles, we could just use {{Infobox gunpowder plotter}} without having to merge it. But normally, we expect to see examples of where parameters would be useful, before we do the work in implementing them. --RexxS (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything biographical is catered for in the 'criminal' infobox; for |role=, use |known_for=, rewording as necessary - for example, change "Catesby's retainer" to "Acting as Catesby's retainer in the Gunpowder Plot". the single instance of the template on the article about the event, rather than a biography should be replaced with {{Infobox event}}, where the event-specific parameters also have equivalents, and would not be merged into {{Infobox criminal}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:INFOCOL Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 01:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per WP:INFOCOL & Capankajsmilyo; seems redundant. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Renata (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no benefit to merging. The fact that there are not many using the template is not a reason to merge. There are criminals, and as such we should have an appropriate infobox. Lightburst (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There [sic] are indeed criminals; and so {{Infobox criminal}} is an appropriate infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge IAW WP:INFOCOL. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -dashiellx (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
merge, I don't see anything extraordinarily special about the people involved in this plot vs the people involved in all the other plots in Category:Conspiracies. Frietjes (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2020 (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:Ping project

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:Mass notification. czar 19:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping project (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, no documentation, no transclusions or links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objection as unused. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 18:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Template:Mass_notification. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Pppery. PPEMES (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2020 (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 protest faction

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. czar 19:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox protest faction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox organization (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox protest faction with Template:Infobox organization.
WP:INFOCOL. No unique variables. PPEMES (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete InfObox protest faction - no transclusions. Oppose merging - isn't "protests" a unique variable? Christian75 (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No merge; agree just delete "protest faction". Manannan67 (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball – There is a clear consensus to delete this template. --Soumyabrata ^{stay at home} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from coronavirus} 17:31, 11 April 2020 (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:2018–19 Women's EHF Champions League group table

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2018–19 Women's EHF Champions League group table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Category:2018–19 handball standings templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2019–20 Women's EHF Champions League group table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2019–20 EHF Champions League group table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Category:2019–20 handball standings templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Category:Handball standings by season templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused after being merged with the parent articles (with attribution) per consensus in many prior discussions here at WP:TFD Frietjes (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2020 (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:Mars One

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. czar 19:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mars One (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox is unhelpful for readers, as we have little to no articles related to the defunct Mars One. Soumyabrata ^{stay at home} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from coronavirus} 13:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete MarsOne is defunct, and the entire first line is speculative for future article links, which will never occur -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. – OfficialURL (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2020 (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:Jat clans of Azad Kashmir

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jat clans of Azad Kashmir (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single entry template. Störm (talk) 11:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Template:Azad Kashmir topics, per WP:NOTFINISHED. PPEMES (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 19 original constituents of the template, but only one with an article. Those redlinks were dubiously removed, but, regardless, doesn't pass WP:EXISTING. --Bsherr (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not enough articles to navigate between – almost all of the links in the previous verions were either to articles that have been deleted via PROD or AfD, or ones that have never been created in the first place. I don't expect there'll be clans notable enough for us to have articles on in the future. – Uanfala (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2020 (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 world university ranking

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 university rankings. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox world university ranking (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox university rankings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox world university ranking with Template:Infobox university rankings.
Couldn't this be merged? PPEMES (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the challenge here is mostly the syntax and complexity. it would be helpful to see a merged template to know what is involved in merging the two. Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think merging would be technically difficult. What's important is learning from past mistakes and arriving at an improved solution. Here is how I see it at first glance:

	[1] Infobox university rankings	[2] Infobox world university ranking
Title	Ideal	Unecessarily long
Underlying template	Template:Infobox	Ad-hoc
Ease of maintenance	A bit tedious	Quite complicated
Format of entries	Near-identical
Handling of references	Not standardized, Sometimes hard-coded	Standardized, Enforced in articles
Handling of years	Not standardized	Not standardized
Documentation	Bare minimum	Good
Visual style	Ok	Good
Categories	Few	Several, Could be expanded
Use in articles	small	high

So I would suggest importing the design, categories, documentation, and missing entries of [2] into [1] using Template:Infobox, then expand the categories to include business schools and field ranks. [2] could then be redirected to [1], hopefully without problems. Brilliantwiki2 (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliantwiki2, I have not been able to find your proposed merged template code in the sandbox? Where is it? Frietjes (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I began working on a universal template but soon got overwhelmed by design choices and some technical restrictions. I wanted to do Global-Regional-National-Local headers which would then be slit into sub-headers, but this restricts the number of entries in each category and leads to a rather nasty "#if:"-situation. So, after sleeping on it, I now think the most flexible and easy-to-maintain solution is to use separate headers for a variety of categories. ~~Frietjes, the code is at Template:X16 for the time being~~ (the example is just a small selection, the code is much larger). Note that there are no country tags; all countries share the same "national"-headers, which should not get too crowded any time soon. Currently it encompasses the following templates, with many additions:

* Template:Infobox university rankings

* Template:Infobox world university ranking

* Template:Infobox business school rankings

* Template:Infobox_Australian_university_ranking

* Template:Infobox Canadian university rankings

* Liberal arts colleges

* Law schools

* Engineering schools

* ... and more

If you like it then I will write the documentation. There are many new tags that require cleanup of some articles (mostly little-used tags); I can clean up the articles using the first two templates in the days following their merger, if the proposed code is accepted. Brilliantwiki2 (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliantwiki2, could you put your code in Template:Infobox_university_rankings/sandbox? this will avoid the need to fight the bot that cleans X16. I will try to look at the code later today. Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! Thank you! PPEMES (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ignore the documentation though. Brilliantwiki2 (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge These templates seem to be trying to do the same thing.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snow – There is a clear consensus to merge this template. --Soumyabrata ^{stay at home} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from coronavirus} 12:56, 15 April 2020 (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 business school rankings

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 2020 April 22. Primefac (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox_business_school_rankings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox_university_rankings (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:Dtl

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 2020 April 13. Primefac (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dtl (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:Baltic emporia

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:Norse people footer. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Baltic emporia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Norse people footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Baltic emporia with Template:Norse people footer.
While "Balic emporia" is a descent attempt to bring a proper overview, what actually binds the overview together is how it pertains to the wider Norse context. Hence a merge for synergetic overview end results, anyone? Intended for some "Geography" section within the destination template. PPEMES (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note that this is basically a list of urban areas of the archaic Norse people. Emporium (early medieval) mainly speak about Anglo-Saxon entities. PPEMES (talk) 09:24, 8 April 2020 (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:Tartu Parish (before 2017)

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tartu Parish (before 2017) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

expired, unused, unhelpful after administrative reform of Estonia. Substituted by template:Tartu Parish Estopedist1 (talk) 04:59, 5 April 2020 (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:Võru Parish (before 2017)

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Võru Parish (before 2017) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

expired, unused, unhelpful after administrative reform of Estonia. Substituted by template:Võru Parish Estopedist1 (talk) 04:59, 5 April 2020 (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).