Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 July 28

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< July 27 July 29 >

July 28 edit

Template:Spamonly 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Merge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Spamonly with Template:Uw-soablock.
Both are indefinite block templates. Spamonly has a nearly identical initial text to {{Uw-soablock}}. They also have the same explanation. There is also a notalk parameter for block templates, Spamonly does not have the notalk parameter. Eyesnore 22:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • What would be gained by merging them? Template:Spamonly is rarely used, but if any administrator wishes to sue it instead of Template:Uw-soablock, why should he or she not be allowed to? Or, to put it another way, what harm does having both alternatives available do? Unless either the nominator or someone else can tell us what benefit would be achieved by merging, we should leave it as it is. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The category Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for link-spamming would be gained as the block reason. Eyesnore 21:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, standardizing block templates. Spamonly is rarely used and should be standardized. Nakon 03:55, 31 July 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Miss Ecuador Provinces 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete (no objections; now has only four links). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The parent category, which was created by the sockuppet of a banned/blocked editor, was deleted and many of the entries are at AFD also. ...William 16:43, 28 July 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:N.E.C. 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. A useful aid to navigation, can be expanded, was not aware links had been broken due to name change. Fenix down (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to link to just one other article. Not currently a useful aid to navigation. Fenix down (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have fixed the broken links on the template. It now links to two articles, two subsections and two categories. Hopefully it is enough to keep the template. THe links had been broken due to all the name changing of categories pertaining to the club, but they are fixed now. I will see if I can write the article for the training grounds, since it is o common site on NEC TV, and also hosts good youth tournaments, this weekend. Thank you. (Subzzee (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Sheikh Noor Muhammad 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete (no objections raised). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that purports to provide a navbox for the family of a notable person, but that person has no article (it's only a redirect). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A review of the redirect shows that the original article about Sheikh Noor Muhammad was deleted 20 July 2015. The template was created on 27 June 2015; apparently, it was orphaned when the article was deleted. It serves no purpose now. The redirect now goes to his son's article where Sheikh Noor Muhammad is briefly mentioned, and his photograph appears. The original article and use of the template can be seen here. The tragedy in all this is that a fairly new user created the template (and it looks like he did a pretty good job of it), and he created or edited a lot of other content. His talk page is full of deletion notices, however, and he seems to have stopped editing on or about 1 July 2015. I cannot help but wonder if he wasn't feeling bitten.  Etamni | ✉  07:21, 30 July 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Kurds infobox 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Subst and delete. Any further changes can be discussed at Talk:Kurds. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template is currently being used in only one article, after used a cut-down version in Kurdish population (which fixed the redundancy of the population figures in that article). I suggest merging it with Kurds. could history merge it with template:Kurds image array or move it to article space and redirect. for precedent, see World War II/Infobox and related discussion. Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete: This serves no purpose as a template, and it's causing problems (like duplicate citations, and WP:POVFORKing of population data). I spent several hours cleaning up both the article's and template's citations and figures.This appears to have been dumped into a template to keep the infobox shorter (some of the citations are excessively long, with highly detailed quotations), but the fix for that it is obviously to move the citations into the article body and only cite in the infobox with <ref name="Foo" />. Standard operating procedure per WP:INFOBOX: All data in the infobox should be somewhere in the main body of the article, too. (In this case, as most of it is population data, it's obvious where that goes.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:20, 3 August 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Plays by D. C. Moore 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete (no objections). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation Rob Sinden (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Highest-grossing Bollywood films 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contents are contained at List of highest-grossing Indian films with actual sources. Here the information is unsourced and differs with the contents there. This template is not necessary to keep a running list of the top box office films (in particular when two current ones are moving) and given the massive amount of fighting over this stuff, the article is better than a overly simplistic table. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom's reasons. Dynamic list and quite controversial too especially as it always has lack of proper referencing. It would always fail our V policy. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have added two more similar templates of Tamil and Telugu films for same discussion on same rationale. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all As D points out the info is dynamic and will continue to change. Lack of referencing is bad and the edit warring looks like it will not stop. MarnetteD|Talk 00:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delere If sources are not reliable, no need to mantain a special template. May lead to unnecessary fan based edit wars PK talk 10:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per nom. Unnecessary clutter and dynamic template. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 14:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Db135 added a source here but since templates are placed at the bottom of the page after the references section, now every page it's one as a little extra extraneous footnote underneath. References don't help the matter much. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Discreet abbreviation 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fork of {{Abbr}}, with inline styling to hide the usual dotted underline, If there is consensus to use that style, it should be applied to the original template, in our core CSS. Otherwise, this template should be deleted.

[Given the nature of this template, I'll 'noinclude' the TfD notice, and place a note on {{Abbr}}'s talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The idea is that there are some abbreviations that anybody would understand in context (like month abbreviations) that we don't need to identify visually, but which screen readers would still pronounce in their abbreviated form if it were for the lack of <abbr>...</abbr>. Alakzi (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • AIUI, there's no need to mark up such abbreviations. But I'll ask the accessibility project folk to comment here, too. (I also expect that this template is not being used solely for such abbreviations.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Screen readers don't pronounce the contents of abbr tags unless the user asks them to; I for one have never used them. Graham87 14:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I concur, standard abbreviations should not use <abbr>. Also, hiding an accessability feature (the underline) for the visually-enabled... is an accessability violation. As far as I can tell, only {{weather box}} uses it for the month names, and |3= is not used. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. That said, I think we do need to do something about the in-yo'-face nature of the current style. Reduce the underlining's contrast to just within accessibility limits, so it's less prominent and annoying. That would inspire fewer people to make templates like this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Alakzi (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox computer peripheral 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox computer peripheral with Template:Infobox computer hardware.
Largely overlapping; many parameters in common. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 28 July 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Round in circles 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge both templates, maintaining all features of both, the name "Recurring themes" seems to be more appropriate for the resulting template. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Round in circles with Template:Recurring themes.
Largely similar; shared function. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. Alakzi (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - same purpose. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • support merge no need for two of the same thing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – What is the suggested target? The round in circles template is older, if that makes any difference. Dustin (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can only support this as an actual merge, keeping the features of both. None of that just blank-and-redirect business. One template has the option to search the archives, while the other allows for a list of highlighted discussions. Dustin (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, although I like the idea of being able to search, and am indifferent as to if it should be round in circles, or recurring themes. I like Dustin's suggestion about being able to use either/or. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, keep the search function. Don't care what name.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Per Dustin, if the functionality is properly merged as he suggested. Oppose blanking and redirecting. --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Merge - both templates have pretty much the same function. --201.53.89.217 (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:FAQ group begin 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. Now that the template has been rewritten per a commenter's suggestion and this has stood, and considering the number of keep votes, I judge the consensus is for the status quo. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Collapse top}} (same goes for the equivalent 'end' templates). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; while both templates make collapsible divs, the formatting is very different. People see {{collapse top}} and generally ignore what's in it; it's used often to "hat" unproductive parts of conversations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't need separate templates just for a stylistic difference which - if needed - can be achieved with a simple switch. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to {{hidden begin}}/{{hidden end}}. Frietjes (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC) rewrite as a wrapper for {{hidden begin}}/{{hidden end}}, the conditional collapse code is not in any of the other collapse templates, but this could be rewritten as a wrapper (now done). Frietjes (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No proposal on how to seamless handle existing transclusions. Editors don't want to be inundated with wikitext formatting, e.g. centering, color, etc, which this template makes transparent. No issue if this is made into a wrapper for another template with greater functionality, but this can be done outside of TfD and transparent to users and existing transclusions.—Bagumba (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{Collapse top}} requires no "wikitext formatting, e.g. centering, color, etc". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • {{Collapse top}} has color by default, whereas {{FAQ group begin}} does not. The centering was in reference to earlier above !vote (since struck) to redirect to {{hidden begin}}.—Bagumba (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As {{FAQ group begin}} has been rewritten as a wrapper with these edits on August 8, this should be procedurally closed, as implementation redundancies have been addressed. (Thanks Frietjes! This is consistent with my thinking that many TfDs can be avoided by boldly implementing a wrapper that addresses template editors' valid redundancy concerns, while making usage transparent to editors.)—Bagumba (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Another useful template that is in widespread use on multiple articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For *all* the supportive comments/rationales presented above - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox concert tour 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox concert tour with Template:Infobox concert.
Redundant, with the exception of |number_of_legs=, |budget= and the 4 extra misc parameters. Alakzi (talk) 09:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong merge – Having some uncommon parameter between the two is not a reason to keep separate templates justifying the same event, a concert. One can choose to populate or not populate the unique fields for a concert tour and concert. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 05:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per IndianBio.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:13, 2 August 2015 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_28&oldid=1142562566"