Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 7

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< May 6 May 8 >

May 7 edit

Television in the United Kingdom 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 don't merge. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 22:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Television in Scotland and Template:Television in Wales with Template:Media in the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom currently consists of England, Wales, Northern Ireland, & Scotland. As it currently stands, television in the United Kingdom, or more specifically, England, is already listed in the Media in the UK template. If the Media in the UK template is meant to cover ALL of the UK, then there is NO reason to have separate "Television in..." templates for Ireland, Scotland, & Wales. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have boldly removed the Ireland template from this proposal. Ireland is not part of the UK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, seeing as how you DO have a point, I took it one step further & completely removed Ireland from the merger discussion. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge. {{Media in the United Kingdom}} is intended for national media and it should be kept that way 'cause it's plenty long as it is. We wouldn't have one massive navbox with all of the national and local stations of all 50 states of the US, would we? Izkala (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm calling a straw man argument on that. I could see your point if you were objecting to a template listing the various television broadcasters in the English county (a better analog to states in the US) of, say, Northumberland being merged with the Media in the UK template, but that is NOT this. THIS is something different. Plus, Scotland & Wales technically are countries, alongside their fellow countries Northern Ireland & England, that make up the UK. The thing is, you can't really compare the sub-national structure of the US to that of the UK, as the US is a federal state, whereas the UK is a unitary state, therefore the two of them utilize different sub-national structures. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay? The intricacies of US and British administration wasn't the point; I was drawing an analogy between the size of the two imagined navboxes. If we're gonna split them some way, splitting them between national and local media (be it state-, county- or country-specific) is a sensible option. Smaller, unsectioned navboxes are easier to navigate. Izkala (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, if the intricacies of US & UK administration wasn't the point, then why'd you bring it up? Don't bring something up if it's not part of what you're trying to put forth. Oh, and by the way, this discussion from the former talk page for the former Television in England template kinda talks about this type of merger, with @Rangoon11: advocating for merging the TV in England template with the former TV in the UK template. In this situation, I am advocating for merging the TV in Scotland & Wales templates with the Media in the UK template. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge but remove Ch 4 & Ch 5. These templates are very different. The UK template doesn't include all UK TV stations; it covers some of the more well-known stations that are available throughout the UK. The Welsh and Scottish templates cover TV stations that are targeted specifically at viewers in Wales or Scotland (and on the most popular Freeview platform are not available in England or N Ireland). (The exceptions to this, Channels 4 and 5, could arguably be removed from these two templates.) -- Dr Greg  talk  19:20, 7 May 2016 (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:Sync 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 here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 22:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a maintenance template with no documentation and no apparent uses that are important and unable to be served by other templates. I'm not sure if it duplicates {{Contradicts other}} or if it's a request to harmonise the exact text (i.e. copy a chunk from one article to another) or to do something else, but if it's the first, we can use the other template, if the second, this isn't really a maintenance-template-needed situation, and if the third, we can use {{cleanup}} with a rationale. Nyttend (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I presume that by "no documentation" you really mean that the documentation explains how to use the template but not why. I think that the purpose of the tag is made a little clearer by the link to Wikipedia:Summary style. It is applied to sections that cover the same subjects as articles and should therefore be summaries of those articles. Sometimes the tag is placed on the article page and sometimes in the summary section. I think that one reasonable use for the tag is to alert editors to "summary" sections that are better than the article itself (e.g., French popular music). In response, one could improve the article or merge it. If the template is kept, its purpose should be made clear in the documentation. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, by "no documentation" I meant that it has no explanation for what we're supposed to do with it. If the "how" were missing, it would just be a SOFIXIT issue; I'd take it to WP:HD with a request for someone to help me understand the parameters it takes. Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Category:Articles to harmonize has 60 subcategories and less than 100 Articles. If the template is deleted, what becomes of the tagged articles? On the other hand, If the template is kept, its purpose should be made clear in the documentation is very well said by RockMagnetist. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that we can just remove the tag. Perhaps a bit more work, but...a bot could remove each template, leave an explanatory note at the talk page for each templated article, and perhaps even leave a note at the talk page of the user who added it. This will catch any situations in which it's meant for {{contradicts other}}, and we really don't need maintenance templates merely for "the summary section elsewhere is better than this article" or vice versa. Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2016 (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).

French local flag 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 all and replace with the appropriate flag/flagicon. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only used in Quidster4040's userspace. Most of these flag data templates are redundant, since the corresponding standard ones such as {{Country data French Guiana}} include the local flags as variants, and the template via which the nominated templates are used supports variants. The exception is Saint Martin, whose local flag was removed as dubious. See also User talk:Quidster4040/Archive 8#French territory flag templates. SiBr4 (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to potential closers: The user who created these templates was never notified of their nomination for deletion. I'm notifying them now. Please leave this for a day or two to allow that user a change to respond. ~ RobTalk 22:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The creator was pinged here. You're right that I hadn't left a (new) talk page message, though. SiBr4 (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @SiBr4: Yes, I didn't mean to suggest wrong-doing on your part, just that it would be helpful to wait to see if the creator will comment. Talk page messages usually garner more attention than mentions. ~ RobTalk 23:00, 14 May 2016 (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:Country data Europe map 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) ~ RobTalk 22:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flag template using a map image. It is unused except in two discussions, according to which it was created by John Anderson as a test version of the protected {{Country data Europe}} based on the mistaken belief that the flag of Europe only represents the EU. If still useful for testing, this should be at Template:Country data Europe/sandbox. SiBr4 (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2016 (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:Ice-Pick Lodge 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 as unopposed. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 22:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only navigates 3 articles. Izno (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2016 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_7&oldid=1138532730"