Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 15

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

October 15

[edit]

Template:Oklahoma Spanish Stations

[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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; replaced with Template:Oklahoma TV Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:03, 15 October 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:TPD

[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. I am, however, going to make an administrative (not an administrator) decision to page swap them so that the final/full template ends up at {{The Princess Diaries}}. This is due to the long-standing precedent that templates should have descriptive names. Primefac (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:TPD with Template:The Princess Diaries.
There is really no need to have two separate templates for this when the one with the films only has like 4 different pages. ★Trekker (talk) 17:31, 15 October 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:Asiantitle

[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The template /doc says its purpose is to be used inside citations. A note was added in 2014 stating that it should not be used in citations, which leaves no correct usage for this template. Per the discussion here, the mappings of the parameter should be as follows:

  • |1= → |script-<param>=<lang code>:<non-Latin text>; |script-title=, |chapter-title=, etc
  • |2= → |<param>=<transliterated text>; |title=, |chapter=, etc
  • |3= → |trans-<param>=<translated text>; |trans-title=, |trans-chapter=, etc
  • |4= → not supported
  • |eng= → appears to be a unused. Gonnym (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The restriction is that {{Asiantitle}} shall not be used in cs1|2 templates ({{cite book}} etc). The template can be used elsewhere though. With the exception of the prettification that it does with |4= (style), outside of cs1|2, {{Asiantitle}} can be replaced with one of the {{nihongo}} templates or with various combinations of plain text, {{lang}}, and {{transl}}.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The restriction was for the citation templates, but as I noted, at the same time, the purpose of the template, as stated in the docs was only for citations templates. As you pointed out, we have other templates that already handle language related words in other parts of the text. No need for another one. --Gonnym (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have archived the referenced discussion at Module talk:Citation/Archive 1 § Template:Asiantitle.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:03, 15 October 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:Russia national football team matches

[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 2020 October 25. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:14, 25 October 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:Top of page

[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. But there is consensus that these templates should not be used in mainspace. Current usages in mainspace should be removed. Long term, a namespace restriction, e.g. using {{main other}}, may be appropriate to prevent this. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non standard interface component, used on just 46 (out of ~50 million) pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pretty much two options, keep as-is or keep but not use in mainspace; looking for more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 16:00, 15 October 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).
[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, but might be useful and just lost in the 'pedia. If not needed or wanted on French communes, should be deleted. Gonnym (talk) 14:38, 15 October 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:European Parliament election, 1979 (Greenland)

[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused since 1979 European Parliament election in Greenland uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 14:27, 15 October 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 Bach composition

[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 musical composition. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Bach composition with Template:Infobox musical composition.
Both templates are musical compositions. Propose either a complete merger and replacement of the Bach template, or converting it into a wrapper template in order to achieve a consistent style across all musical composition articles. Gonnym (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Historically, Bach composition came first, when infoboxes for classical music were not yet welcome. Some Bach compositions already use Musical composition, as less narrow. What I would want to see, though, is that the BWV number, which may be the recognizable part of an article title for English-speaking people, for whom the often German longish work titles may mean nothing, is still retained above the image, but not as part of the work title which it is not. It should be separate for granularity. Make a good suggestion to achieve that, and I can support.
    Example for Bach composition: BWV 170
    Example for musical composition which includes the number in the title: BWV 8
    Note that the latter looks the same, but the BWV no. is in no individual parameter.
    --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gerda Arendt: {{Infobox musical composition}} has |subtitle= which it uses a |subheader=#1 so right under the title. Is that good? --Gonnym (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, BWV number is not a subtitle. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not a title, or part of the title, either. What do you suggest? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps this should be discussed on the template talk, or after closing copied to there.
    Perhaps we need a new parameter for the catalogue numbers that are treated as synonyms of a composition, and never omitted in concert programs, and should therefore appear on top, versus catalogue numbers that almost nobody knows. Some operas have an Opus number, or a number in a composers catalogue of works, but such a number is not even a parameter on {{infobox opera}}. They should of course not take prominence. Actually, the same goes for key. In some genres, the key of a composition is something to be known soon as something to distinguish string quartets, piano sonatas and such. In other compositions, it's nice to know but not of such importance.
    Simple suggestion: |key_header= followed by |catalogue_header=
    Thoughts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No thoughts? Other option: we have a limited number of composers for which that would be useful, Bach, Bruckner and Mozart come to my mind. Could we have some kind of logic that puts the correct catalogue (BWV, WAB, K.) with the number on top? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My thought for BWV is to keep the solution we already have that is already working - this template. I don't see good reason here to merge and make this more complicated. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Which one do you mean as "working"? So far I understood that I have trouble accepting as part of the title, and you have trouble accepting it like a subtitle. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, handing the BWV issue per Gerda. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if we can use |subheader= for the BWV numbers as explained. Andy, would that work. (Would one still fill |catalogue=?) - Please inform Classical music of this discussion if not done yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, there will always be issues to sort with such templates (as an example of that, recently I discovered that the {{Infobox musical composition}} uses the spelling "meter" for what in another flavour of the English language would be spelled "metre", thus imposing one flavour of the language in contravention of the WP:ENGVAR guidance – didn't bring that up yet on the template's talk page): the advantage of a merged template is that such issues can be sorted once, and don't need to be sorted twice, separately for each template (for clarity, Bach only composed very few new tunes for metrical poetry, none of these few tunes on a separate page yet afaik, so it might be quite some time from now before we'd need the metre/meter parameter for a page devoted to a Bach composition – by which time we'd likely have forgotten that the issue was already sorted for the general template, if they weren't merged as a consequence of this TfD). On the other hand, I'd appreciate if the {{Infobox musical composition}} were no longer template–protected (semi-protection would seem sufficient), in which case I'd likely already have sorted the metre/meter issue in the template code, instead of having to bring it up on the template talk page. Is it OK for me to bring this up in this TfD discussion? I'd like to formally request that the protection level of {{Infobox musical composition}} be reduced from template protection to semiprotection (that's currently the only advantage I see in keeping the Bach template separate: it has no such protection measures). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a template automatically becomes protected at a certain number and it's already almost at 2k. However, (without going to any political minefield) adding a |metre= parameter which will change the display label is pretty easy (which I or any template editor can do). I would also add that {{Infobox musical composition}} should really have a cleanup of the code as it has way too many alternative parameter names when one is enough. --Gonnym (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • In which case I change my !vote to Split (& very strong oppose to merger) the general composition template to separate by-composer templates, for each composer with more than, say, a handful of composition articles. Sorry, nor template editors nor admins should be bothered for such trivial issues (and that's usually the attitude they take: can't be bothered for such trivialities like introducing a variant display of a parameter name, or trivial code cleanup). If the protection level can't be overridden after a consensus among interested editors, and only depends on number of implementations, then this template should be split until all instances are at a protection level of semi or lower. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just explaining: |meter= was introduced when infobox hymn was merged into infobox musical composition. It will be understood. What I don't particularly like is using "meter" throughout an article even for European topics, just because of the infobox. I think it's better to allow one exception than change however many times that word is used. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I just checked Gonnym's claimthought "... a template automatically becomes protected at a certain number" – that, anyhow, was not the case here. The template got protected indefinitely some two months ago, for edit-warring (Gerda might have remembered, for being one of the edit-warring parties – I find no trace of either of the edit-warring parties initiating a discussion on the template's talk page at the time, so placing the template protection seems a logical decision under the conditions at the time). Pinging RexxS (who placed the template protection): can it be considered, and if so under which conditions, to change the protection level of the {{Infobox musical composition}} template to semi? Tx for considering.
    Here's my approach: five years ago the hymn infobox was, after TfD discussion, merged into the musical composition infobox. After which, in a period of five years, nobody bothered to clean up the code (as Gonnym said: "... {{Infobox musical composition}} should really have a cleanup of the code as it has way too many alternative parameter names") – Maybe we should reconsider the tendency to always merge somewhat similar templates: merger after merger (without cleaning up the code) can, in some cases, result in templates that become, one way or another, unmanageable. Since that is clearly the case here, this new merger proposal abodes no good: it will result in unnecessarily complex code becoming even more complex, and, as the history of this template clearly shows, nobody bothers to clean up the code (well, the OP of this TfD could have cleaned up the code before proposing a new merger: they didn't, and as I see it, that handicaps their present proposal). For these reasons I added a very strong opposition for the current merger proposal to my !vote above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC) (updated after Andy's comment below 10:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    Gonnym did not claim "... a template automatically becomes protected at a certain number"; they actually said "I think a template automatically becomes protected at a certain number". The original is just a few lines above your misrepresentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting from the intro of Wikipedia:High-risk templates: "Note that a bot automatically template-protects pages with over 5000 transclusions and semi-protects pages with over 500 transclusions, and that a 2018 RfC identified rough consensus to permanently semiprotect templates with at least around 200-250 transclusions." – whether a "claim" or a "thought", it doesn't apply: {{Infobox musical composition}} has currently 1966 transclusions, and {{Infobox Bach composition}} currently has 223, meaning that even after a merge of both templates transclusions would need to more than double before even approaching the number that triggers the automatic protection. My comment was rather directed at Gonnym's vaguish "I think (something utterly unrelated to the discussion at hand)": why not just check before placing such off-topic comments? And after performing such check write something that is to the point in the discussion instead of posting an irrelevant comment? I'd suggest to think things through, as much as possible, before posting them carelessly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    well, the OP of this TfD could have cleaned up the code - I've actually added preview warnings for unsupported parameters and tracking categories so cleanup can be possible. it will result in unnecessarily complex code becoming even more complex - don't mistake redundant alternative parameters with complex code. There is absolutely nothing complex about the code there. It's actually one of the more simplest infoboxes I came across. --Gonnym (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I saw that you initiated that *after* launching the merge proposal. In fact, somewhat less than half an hour after my second post above. Above I wrote "... before proposing a new merger" – I'd expect such cleanup to be complete before a new merger is piled on in the same template. Let's see first where that new cleanup initiative results in. Maybe come back in a few months when that proposed cleanup is complete, at which point a WP:TfD merge proposal may make more sense. Thanks for the "redundant alternative parameters" vs. "complex code" distinction. Before, you had mentioned "should really have a cleanup of the code as it has way too many alternative parameter names" – not making a distinction between "code" that needs cleanup and "alternative parameter names" – or was that just another example of careless writing? Well, my reasoning in this respect: TfD proposal not thought through, vaguish carelessness in replies – not something that inspires confidence in the proposed track. In other words, standing by my very strong oppose for the time being. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I did not edit-war but preserve the status-quo-ante. Another misrepresentation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that is a typical edit-warrior's reply ("I'm right and the other was wrong so I was entitled to revert them!"): leading up to RexxS's template protection there were only two editors undoing each other's edits: you and someone else. The formal reason for protection, given by RexxS in the edit summary with which they protected the template page is "Edit warring / content dispute"... takes two to tango: an edit-war can not be performed by a single editor, without another edit-warring too. Further: if one of these two editors was patently and obviously wrong and the other patently and obviously right, the expected admin action would have been to block the "wrong" party (which then stops the edit-warring too). That's not what happened: the page was protected. Meaning, there being no obviously right nor an obviously wrong edit-warrior. And this is not the forum to defend your edit-warring: take to AN or some such more suitable place if you want to clean your slate of edit-warring behaviour. The problem was obviously that the content dispute was taken to template namespace (proceeding with multiple reverts by two parties), without even an attempt to discuss the issue at the template's talk page (which neither party initiated, as I said above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Looked at BWV 105, BWV 8, BWV 39, BWV 140, BWV 21 to which I have contributed (I recently created the infobox for BWV 105). Am about to change the image for BWV 8, juggling the images with a fair amount to new content. Mathsci (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or make wrapper to ensure access to specialized parameters such as |cantata_cycle= and clear separation of text types. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 15 October 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:Azarov Government Two

[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 Liz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template is used only on Second Azarov government and is about 1/2 of that article's text. This isn't really a template, but complete article text. Subst template into article and delete it. Gonnym (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS Template:Azarov Government Two was deleted by a WP:G7 I requested, me being the creator and biggest contributor to the template. Not sure if I followed the correct procedure, if not I apologise, but the Wikipedia article on the Second Azarov government is in a much better shape now if I may say so. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:56, 15 October 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:ISSIB

[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) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with deprecation since 2013 and still has 7 non-mainspace transclusions. Replace or remove these last uses with {{Orbit}} and delete template. Gonnym (talk) 13:08, 15 October 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).

ICUN 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These templates were all marked as deprecated ~10 months ago and that they should be replaced with {{Cite iucn}}. Moving it to the /holding cell will actually get this done. Templates should be deleted after as they are unhelpful and misleading redirects in pages. Gonnym (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the transclusions and updated all the artcile mainspace and relevent template uses to {{cite iucn}}. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:40, 24 October 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:Jewish and Arab localities in Israel

[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 Userfy. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination per consensus of requested move discussion; unused, see Special:Diff/983636006. Ping User:Gonnym and User:Pppery. SITH (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of this template. Made it back in 2016 and completely forgot about it. Don't delete it, it could be useful for reference in Wikiproject articles concerning Israel and Palestine. Either, I would be happy for instruction on how to move this template into a sandbox page becuase I am not too familiar with how templates work.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:51, 15 October 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:Musicals and operas of Leonard Bernstein

[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 2020 October 24. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:09, 24 October 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:Vaughan Williams operas

[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 2020 October 24. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:09, 24 October 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:Licht

[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 2020 October 24. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:09, 24 October 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).
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_15&oldid=986037659"