Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 14

< November 13	November 15 >

November 14

Header templates

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:HonHeads (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:HonHeadsUK (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:HonHeadsCommonwealth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates are used for transclusion of flagicons and article links within sub-headings. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings: "Headings should not normally contain links. ... Headings should not contain images, including flag icons." DrKiernan (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)^{Minor amendment 15:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)}

Keep They are also used into sections in order to make a link between a royalty and the page collecting the orders granted to royalties and heads of state. This is part of a solution to avoid categorization over orders. NO DELETION PLEASE. IT HAS MULTIPLE IMPLICATIONS. –Mimich (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

INFO . Head here is meant for "heads of states" not section header –Mimich (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC).

• Keep The nominator clearly nominated these for deletion without understanding them. That said, a rename might make sense. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Please comment on the merits or otherwise of the template rather than the nominator. DrKiernan (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Huh? I would say that Ego's comment was on the nomination rather than the nominator. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    • "The nominator" is the subject of the sentence. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:MOS-TRANS

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2013 November 23 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox convention

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge. There is no consensus to delete this template, which was not proposed as an option, but an unfortunate misunderstanding of the use of the {{tfd}} tag instead of the {{tfm}} tag. Reading through the discussion, I see no strong objection to merging the templates, so long as the redirect is retained, and all old options continue to work. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox convention (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template shares almost every parameter with Template:Infobox recurring event, so the two could be merged. I created a few test cases showing the result of a possible merger, compared to the live version. eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be lacking in parameters like venue, status, and country, all three of which are useful and informative. Otherwise, this recurring event infobox looks good and has some additional useful parameters. Do you have the technical ability to add those three parameters to Infobox recurring event?--ɱ (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I tried to do just that in the sandbox page of Infobox recurring event, or did I forget to add some parameters? Venue, status and country are all there, you can check in the test cases if something is missing.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I did notice them in the sandbox, but it appears that you are using a modified template called "Infobox recurring event/sandbox" which allows you to input those three parameters, while the current "Infobox recurring event" template still does not.--ɱ (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That was done on purpose, the live template won't be changed if there's no consensus to merge.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

What is the benefit of such a merger? Also, there needs to be a way, possibly automated, of selecting the US vs. UK spelling of "organize". - Dravecky (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

with {{infobox recurring event}} you can use either |organised= or |organized= and the appropriate label is selected, depending which parameter you choose. Frietjes (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• merge, but keep a redirect. seems like a fairly obvious merger. Frietjes (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Keep The question should be is the infobox useful? Seeing that this template is used widely to show the status of conventions in a quick and easy way I do not see why deletion should be an option here. Why use Template:Infobox recurring event for the convention articles if the extra captions are never going to be used? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Why do you think they're never going to be used?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Because the majority of anime conventions do not have that kind of detailed information in the articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment If you used code from {{Infobox convention}}, then you have to preserve the template (ie not delete it) to preserve attribution. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • That's right, it would have to be redirected to IB recurring event.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
• Merge per nomination. Mackensen (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• I haven't seen any compelling reason stated here to make this proposed change. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Ericwatts (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed I do not see any real reason as the convention template as I have said is widely used. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Looking at both templates, they only have six fields in common: genre, location, attendance, organized/organizer and first/last dates. The latter set is actually treated differently by both templates ({{Infobox convention}} only includes the last date if the convention is defunct). Unless there is greater correlation between fields, features, and appearance, deleting this template and replacing it with {{Infobox recurring event}} is not advisable. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Due to the large and specific usage by anime conventions and as far as I can tell, the current code isn't broken. Esw01407 (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, most useful and helpful template, encyclopedic, — Cirt (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
• Merge provided it's technically feasible and all the fields get an equivalent in {{Infobox recurring event}}, of course. {{Infobox convention}} is, frankly, a template in need of major overhaul anyway - and from an encyclopedic perspective I see no reason why fan conventions need special treatment vs. any other event, so may as well merge. --Anonymouslybad (talk) 14:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
• Merge in agreement with the reasons stated above.--ɱ (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • What reasons? The only reason I see coming from the merge side is that the template is redundant which is not true as it has proven it is widely used. Why break something that does not need fixing? As for special treatment if that is what it is coming down to then that is a rather weak and silly argument to make. Should I say the same for categories? There are tons of categories here on Wikipedia that are widely used that are under parent categories. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the templates appear very similar in what aspects they list as well as what venues they serve. So I would say that the templates are redundant, even if both of them are currently in high use. As well, I agree with Anonymouslybad with regard to special treatment; I do not regard fan conventions to be notable or significant enough to warrant their own infobox template, as the one for recurring events is very inclusive, so as long as merging technically works, I would approve it. As well, I support the merge because I would like to use parameters from each template in several articles that I have been contributing to.--ɱ (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:TCSR

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G8 by Ged UK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:TCSR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template for WP:IINFO/WP:LISTCRUFT statistics that was used in deleted article. Unused after deletion of article. AldezD (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Talkdoc

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Talkdoc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All related bugs have been fixed. Preloads can now make use of INCLUDE statements. Only 12 pages link to it. I could easily move documentations into the preloads. I just need a go-ahead. Dpleibovitz (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• delete if all the bugs have been fixed. Frietjes (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

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). No further edits should be made to this section.