Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 22

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 21 September 23 >

September 22 edit

Template:PRCTownships 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

({{PRC admin/ref sgc}} intentionally excluded, though it maybe should be deleted for a different reason) Totally overcomplicated system for storing data, which is in net used on only one article. Pppery 23:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, only used in one article. Use Wikidata. (This looks like an incomplete import of the zhwiki template, which was created before Wikidata was available.) Jc86035 (talk) 04:47, 23 September 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:Shooting at the 2014 Summer Youth Olympics 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) 01:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template that is nothing but redlinks Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template was created with the idea that someone would create individual event pages. It's been three years since the event so I guess it should be deleted. JoshMartini007 (talk) 16:09, 23 September 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:NYCS time 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. WP:NPASR. Primefac (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't really do much other than add <sup> to {{NYCS SSI}}. It's only directly used in {{NYCS time 2}} AFAIK. Jc86035 (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this is not too much relevant in wikipedia. AlfaRocket (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, 662 transclusions and nobody seems to know if it does anything (from the "AFAIK"). Christian75 (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Christian75: My initial post was formatted incorrectly ({{tag}} didn't display due to incorrect parameter order). All the template does is add <sup>. It is mentioned directly using template syntax on only these five pages. It is not used on any of the discussion pages since all mentions are inside <nowiki>, which leaves {{NYCS time 2}} and its sandbox, where it can be replaced by <sup>{{NYCS SSI|{{{1}}}|text={{{text}}}}}</sup>. Jc86035 (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:55, 22 September 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:Athletics at the 1930 British Empire Games 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) 01:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. entirely red links except for 3 which all link to the same page. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:27, 22 September 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:Infobox royal house 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. (non-admin closure) J947(c) (m) 03:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox royal house with Template:Infobox noble house.
A few weeks ago it was decided to merge {{Infobox noble house}} with {{infobox family}}. Unfortunately, it seems only one person who is actually familiar with the usage of {{Infobox noble house}} commented. I'd like to counterpropose the obvious merge of these two instead - they are nearly identical and could much, much more easily be merged. The templates for Houses of Nobility and Royalty are nearly identical and their subjects overlap, and many times I have seen articles on noble houses using the {{infobox royal house}} instead. The majority of their fields are of no use on {{infobox family}} and vice versa, and this merge would just cause confusion (who is the "current head" of the Kennedy family? What is the "current region" of the House of Romanov?). While the subjects might seem to be the same, the templates do not actually correspond with each other. Merging noble house/family templates is going to create a lot of work for someone when the same purpose could much more easily be accomplished by merging it with Royal House. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per WP:INFOCOL and MOS:IB. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional merge, but merge with {{infobox family}} - it is ready for it, as suggested in Template_talk:Infobox_family#Merged_version by SMcCandlish (talk · contribs). I partly disagree with the general comments here above. If the parametres are really an issue, I would say there are two solutions: 1) harmonise the terminology of the parametres for a broader application, and/or 2) for parametres that just won't work out that way, either a) make clear that not all parametres need to be filled, and b) employ a moduled ("aristocracy"?) solution - both a) and b) would be similar to the case of Template:Infobox person. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Parameters are "cheap". It's a trivial matter to support variant parameters, produce consistent output, and only "advertise" the currently desired parameters in the documentation. If some output is no longer desired, just disable the parameters in question.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see why we should merge different social Classes and cultures in 1 box?? Noble houses and royal houses are completely different and could benefit from different seperate templates.--Carolus (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because, as SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) has pointed out, all parametres are already overlapping. Furthermore, if new parametres need to be added, that's not a problem. This doesn't mean that all pages using the infobox need to employ every parameter. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wel if you look at this you can see the mojority arent noble Families but Royal houses and even Dynasties that use this template, this is wrong. They should use Infobox royal house and not Noble Family.--Carolus (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • One should create a template + category for bastard branches like Nassau-Corroy. that would be correct.--Carolus (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're not getting it. "This is wrong" doesn't logically apply. The template doesn't magically care whether the input is "noble", "royal", a "dynasty", or whatever. It takes input and produces consistent output. In all these cases the input is the same kind of information, in the same parameters, and the output should be displayed in the same way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • The template doesn't magically care (?), but i do! Why don't we make 1 Big gigantic template; let's call it Template:Wikipedia, and put EVERYTHING inside, then we do not need this discussion, and everyone will be happy, garantueed.--Carolus (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - that really is a no-brainer - then merge into Infobox family, per previous consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and merge again (per Andy Mabbett), given the templates overlap and the distinction between nobility and royalty is not being made in any meaningful sense between the two. — OwenBlacker (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse, Template:Infobox noble house has already been merged with Template:Infobox family, so is this merge proposal procedure really correctly done? Again, as I and SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) has pointed out, parametres isn't a problem. This could conveniently even be moduled if needed, similarly to Template:Infobox office holder. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They quite clearly have not been merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 1 October 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:CDUAN Basketball roster 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. Already deleted? Primefac (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

old, non-notable roster Frietjes (talk) 14:17, 22 September 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_September_22&oldid=1079613823"