Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 29

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< April 28 April 30 >

April 29 edit

Template:Dark Horse tracks 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 2017 May 9 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:03, 9 May 2017 (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:BocaRiverTable 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) – Train2104 (t • c) 17:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, update as per Superclásico#Head-to-head_record, and use it at that location. Mariano(t/c) 08:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Making it a template only used in one article, which should be substituted and deleted for that reason. Pppery 17:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pppery 17:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not the purpose of templatespace to store article textGonejackal (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2017 (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:Tamaulipas TV 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. Primefac (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were once eight templates linked from this template used in templates like {{Tampico TV}}. Now there are three (the other five have all been TfD'd because there were no non-repeater stations). Subst this and get on with it. Raymie (t • c) 07:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, since it has been substituted into the templates. Frietjes (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2017 (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:APAWiR2015 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 redirect to Template:WIR-1. Primefac (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with the new/superior {{WIR-1}}. The template should be replaced with the new one and then deleted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. The new template set appears to be a clear improvement, nothing will be lost by the merge, and there is no need for having two sets of tags for this information. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge, clearly redundant. Frietjes (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point {{APAWiR2015}} is pretty much unused. Redirecting is probably the best thing since old revisions will then display the new template instead of a redlink. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer question @Headbomb: {{WIR-1}} is specifically for the Asian Pacific editathon. Wouldn't a merge/redirect point to the main {{WIR}}? Primefac (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Never mind, I didn't realize the nominated template was for the Asian Pacific editathon. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2017 (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:John Pasquin 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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NENAN, only four links. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is 5 links and templates with similar number of links have been kept in the past.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make sense. So we keep some with five links and delete others with the same amount? What is the rationale for keeping one and deleting the other? So "other stuff existing" is a perfectly logical reasoning in this instance.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, connects five articles, and by director navboxes with 5 or more links are very common. Frietjes (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2017 (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:White African residence 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 merge with the article Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

subst: and delete: only used in one article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as organizing that particular image as a navbox is far more efficient and allows for ease of editing with all the code that otherwise be involved. It's the norm for some images with colour codes and multiple location markers to be organized as a template for this precisely this reason. It should be considered in this context, instead of simply as a one-off navbox. --Katangais (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with the article, then delete, single-use template. Frietjes (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • substitute then delete not the purpose of templatespaceGonejackal (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2017 (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:Africa Labelled 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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only one use. subst: and delete. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the code here is very complex, better to keep it segregated from the article wikitext. Frietjes (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per User:KoavfGonejackal (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the excessive amount of code which will be transplanted to the article space if the template is deleted will needlessly clutter the actual content text. --Katangais (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll cite WP:TG here and the code is already more simplified with wikimarkup so that it would be easy to add content and work around the substituted code.Gonejackal (talk) 02:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TG appears to discourage collapsing article text within templates; this policy does not appear to have been written with image codes in mind, but rather actual article content (i.e. text). I'd venture that the codes themselves do not meet this definition proper, and may be collapsed within templates as needed. --Katangais (talk) 05:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:COLLAPSE is something different: what you are talking about is the collapsible parameter in templates, something totally different from the policyGonejackal (talk) 09:04, 1 May 2017 (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:Albanian counties labelled 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 merge with the article Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

0 transclusions. Maybe subst: to Divisions of Albania but still delete. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have transcluded it to Administrative divisions of Albania. Laurdecl talk 23:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with the article, then delete, single-use template. Frietjes (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • substitute then delete per aboveGonejackal (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2017 (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:Apayao labelled 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 merge with the article Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have transcluded it to Apayao. Laurdecl talk 23:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with the article, then delete, single-use template. Frietjes (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • substitute then delete per aboveGonejackal (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2017 (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:Longterm4im 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 Rename Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not used, considering that it's the only template whose name starts with "Longterm". Steel1943 (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/move I do use it occasionally. If it were to be moved to uw-longterm4im and added to WP:WARNING, it might find more use. There are a number of long-term vandals that should be templated with this. Jim1138 (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just templated with this and the IP just was blocked for three years (school block) Jim1138 (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:11, 29 April 2017 (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:Steroid metabolism modulators 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 convert to list at List of steroid metabolism modulators Primefac (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bloated navigation template that does not aid navigation. This is one in a growing number of partially overlapping templates that are being appended to metabolizing enzyme, drug, and natural product articles resulting in a rats nest of navboxes. The articles that this template is being added to are primarily about metabolizing enzymes or drugs. Compounds that inhibit this enzyme is secondary to the main topic of the article, the enzyme. Likewise enzymes that are inhibited by a drug secondary to the main topic of the drug article. Hence it is not likely that this template will be used by readers for navigation. This template might be appropriate if it were split into smaller more focused navboxes. Boghog (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Experts and scientists will thoroughly enjoy this nav box. QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Move. I don't see a benefit for a navbox for steroid "metabolism modulators." Many of these are simply related to the MoA's of the drugs listed (e.g. HMG-CoA reductase-i's (aka statins) and 5α-reductase-i's), which overlaps with the drug's class. I think it might make a better article, rather than a navbox. Biochemistry&Love (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I change my vote to move, then. Thank you for letting me know! (: Biochemistry&Love (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to where? A list perhaps. QuackGuru (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • move to List of steroid metabolism modulators, or if there is already such a list, or the list cannot be supported by sources, then delete. Frietjes (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move This is much more suitable as a list. I don't see this massive template offering any navigational value; it contributes only to clutter. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2017 (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:Cytochrome P450 modulators 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 convert to list. at List of cytochrome P450 modulators. Primefac (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bloated navigation template that does not aid navigation. This is one in a growing number of partially overlapping templates that are being appended to metabolizing enzyme, drug, and natural product articles resulting in a rats nest of navboxes. The articles that this template is being added to are primarily about metabolizing enzymes or drugs. Compounds that inhibit this enzyme is secondary to the main topic of the article, the enzyme. Likewise enzymes that are inhibited by a drug secondary to the main topic of the drug article. Hence it is not likely that this template will be used by readers for navigation. This template might be appropriate if it were split into smaller more focused navboxes. Boghog (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Experts and scientists will thoroughly enjoy this nav box. QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • See nominators rationale: "This template might be appropriate if it were split into smaller more focused navboxes." You cannot split it if it were deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for pointing that out QuackGuru,(have struck comment, still think it might be best deleted...IMO[1])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If an article is too long we don't delete it. We split it. According to the nominators rationale it can be split. That's not a delete vote. There are other ways this can be done. An article can be created with a list. But that would be for another discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@QuackGuru: Per WP:NAV: Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B? Why would a reader want to navigate from a drug to a food whose only relationship is that they inhibit two different enzymes in the same family of enzymes? Two drugs that inhibit the same enzyme can lead to drug-drug interactions. Hence it would make much more sense to split this navbox into a series of navboxes, for each of the individual enzymes. Finally it is important to point out that we already have a series of articles that contain sections on inhibitors of cyp enzymes (see CYP1A2, CYP2A6, CYP2B6, ...). These sections in general are sourced and give a relative importance of the various types of metabolism (slow, medium, fast) this additional information is not contained in the navbox Boghog (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "Hence it would make much more sense to split this navbox into a series of navboxes, for each of the individual enzymes." With that in mind, might I suggest you could clarify your vote to split or move. QuackGuru (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I never advocated moving. I was only pointing out that there were already sections of existing articles that serve as lists, so a separate list article would be redundant. Splitting the navbox makes sense, but this would take a considerable effort and I am getting a bit burned out with navbox edits. I would support a split as long as I do not have to do the work ;-) Any volunteers? Boghog (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of the navbox may be interested in moving or splitting it. QuackGuru (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative delete. Move. Perhaps it would make for a better article, instead of a navbox? When I think of CYP modulator questions, it's usually about a specific drug (e.g. does this drug induce/inhibit this CYP enzyme? And if so, to what degree?). Then, you might go to the CYP page in question and see what would be affected (e.g. given that this CYP enzyme is being induced, what substrates would be affected? Is this a major or minor metabolic pathway for this substrate?). I'm not sure how useful a navbox like this would be for that, but perhaps the information would be better found in a single article that concatenated everything. Biochemistry&Love (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed voted to move, per QuackGuru's suggestion. Biochemistry&Love (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Abstain (see my response to Boghog below). What would a "Cytochrome P450 modulators" article have in it, other than a list? Seems like it would be better to have the list be auto-maintained through template references. And I do think the question of "which drugs" affect CYP450 metabolism is an interesting one; if you know that a particular enzyme is responsible for clearing a drug, you'd be able to look at the category list to see potential interactions. (Granted, something like rxlist.com's Interaction Checker would be a more comprehensive source of such information in most cases, but it doesn't say what biochemical agent is the reason that a pair of drugs interact. Plus you can't enter most foods that can interact with drugs, e.g. cumin or grapefruit juice, into such drug interaction tools.) --Dan Harkless (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (changed to Move after discussion with Boghog below), or at least consider creation of article on the subject of CYP 450 modulators. Hard to know what best to do with the CYP4–51 section, but it would benefit greatly from some alterations. I find the rest interesting and extremely useful. BarracudaMc 14:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Harkless and BarracudaMc: Drug-drug interactions are an important topic but I question the appropriateness of a navbox to convey this information, especially a navbox that attempts to display the information about the whole family of cyp enzymes. Drug-drug interactions are caused by drugs interacting at the same enzyme. So at the very least, the navbox should be split up into navboxes for each of the individual enzymes. In addition, we already have sections of articles that have lists of drugs that inhibit a specific enzyme (see for example CYP1A2#Ligands, CYP2A6#CYP2A6_Ligands, etc.) If one is interested in potential drug/drug interactions, it would be better to go to these sections because they are more detailed and are supported by sources. Boghog (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes sense, that you can't put in citations for the appearance of something in a navbox. Given that, I no longer feel strongly about keeping the navbox, whether split or not, and have changed my vote to Abstain. --Dan Harkless (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Boghog Those are excellent points, and I now understand the issue with this navbox more clearly, thank you. I would hate to see the work that someone put into this template go to waste though, so I would rather that it be moved and become its own article, rather than it being outright deleted. BarracudaMc 14:27, 2 May 2017 (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:16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis3555-Byes 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. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

now redundant to and replaced with {{16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis3555|byes=1}} Frietjes (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2017 (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:Track gauge/categorypage mentionings header 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. Primefac (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded now that the categories on which this is used have been deleted at CFD. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:05, 29 April 2017 (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/2017_April_29&oldid=1144177826"