Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 January 24

January 24

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) 04:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused; probably replaced by a section in Template:Germanic languages Frietjes (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2018 (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).
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 2018 February 3. Primefac (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2018 (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).
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 2018 February 3. Primefac (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2018 (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).
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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 05:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

pointless now that the image has been deleted Frietjes (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2018 (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).
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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 05:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused duplicate of Wikipedia:WikiProject Miley Cyrus/Userbox (could be history merged if that's important) Frietjes (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2018 (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).
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 speedy delete per CSD G7. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the intended purpose of this template is. Unlike {{COI}} and {{UPE}} which indicate that there are problems with the content in an article, this seems to be purely focussed on the fact that a particular editor has once edited the article for pay. Seeming as doing so with disclosure is entirely permissible, why is this template necessary? If a disclosure has been made and there are problems with the content then {{coi}} is entirely sufficient. Adding this to articles will only further discourage paid editors from disclosing. SmartSE (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2018 (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).
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) 04:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to warrant a navbox. --woodensuperman 16:18, 24 January 2018 (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).
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) 04:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of the songs are originals, all cover versions, so there's very little of her own product to navigate here. --woodensuperman 16:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC) --woodensuperman 16:05, 24 January 2018 (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).
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 keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 04:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on WP for almost 2 years (longer than that as an IP), and it took me a while to realize that this template should be deprecated. We have section and inline templates which narrow the problem down to a particular part of an article, making it easier to solve; there are also templates like {{one source}} and {{refexample}} that are more specific about exactly what the problem is. KMF (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2018 (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).
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 into {{American English}} and {{British English}}Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:IUPAC spelling US with Template:American English, etc.  In detail:

Merge {{IUPAC spelling US}}'s output and categorization functionality as a |IUPAC=yes parameter in {{American English}}; the separate template is redundant. Merge the same feature to {{Canadian English}} and (for pages using the silent categorizing templates instead of the annoying banners) its categorizing functionality to {{Use American English}} and {{Use Canadian English}}.

For {{IUPAC spelling}}, similarly merge its functionality to the same kind of parameter in {{British English}}, {{Use British English}}, and all the other non-North American ENGVAR templates.

The IUPAC stuff does not magically just apply to US and UK English.

Similarly, merge {{British English Oxford spelling}} output and categorisation functionality to {{British English}} and categorisation to {{Use British English}}, using an |Oxford=yes parameter; add the same to all other pairs of non-North American English templates. Oxford spelling does not apply only to UK English but to all Commonwealth English varieties, primarily used in writing about academic topics.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could not figure out whether the Oxford templates had anything to do with the IUPAC templates. Would |Oxford=yes change the effect of |IUPAC=yes? This is about (in)dependency, and it is not clear. Check this: what when |IUPAC=yes and |Oxford=yes both are set in {{British English}}? Does a second 'yes' change the first one? - DePiep (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Belated answer: "no conflict"; Oxford English just consists of "-ize" instead of "-ise" and that has no effect on IUPAC, which is about some technical terms in standards. Honestly, I don't think the IUPAC option should even exist here, but I didn't care enough to TfDelete that variant. It's harmless, even if pointless and disused.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the IUPAC ones; I understand the proposal is this:
1. Add parameter option |IUPAC=yes to all English language templates (including the {{Use ...}} ones),
2. ... to this effect: it states that chemical (IUPAC) names are written per IUPAC definition, overruling any local (English variant) spelling. Notably, this pertains to the IUPAC spelling of aluminium, sulfur, caesium and names of chemical compounds (not aluminum, sulphur, cesium).
3. Templates with "IUPAC" in their name are to be replaced (preferably deleted in the future, for being this confusing & incorrect).
About the Oxford ones, I have no opinion. -DePiep (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what the TfD nomination says. Was there something unclear about it?  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not any more. For my mind & background, it was described a bit too loose and requiring homework. - DePiep (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Could someone please clarify: what would be the code for these? Right now we have en-US, en-OED, en-BR. How would the new IUPAC and Oxford switch be encoded into these? There will be like: en-US/non-IUPAC (default en-US, I guess) vs. en-US/IUPAC. -DePiep (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think codes exist for them, and this is not a lang-xx markup template that emits ISO language codes anyway. I don't think we're making up new ones on the fly; Trappist the monk would probably know for sure.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Asked for this side-effect friend: inside-of-template {{engvar}} uses these codes to select engvar spellings (an article editor can enter |engvar=en-GB to have the template say "coloUr"). This would be helped having a limited & systematic list of code options. - DePiep (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    en-US is correct for American English; if en-BR is supposed to be for British English then that code is wrong because in that form, as an IETF language tag, it is malformed. BR is an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code for Brazil so the code means: English as spoken in Brazil; en-UK is invalid because UK is a reserved ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code. The correct code for British English is en-GB. We should not be making up our own codes when there are international standards that already define them. If a language code is required for OED then, in keeping with the international IETF language tag standard, perhaps en-x-OED would serve. —Trappist the monk (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it should be en-GB then. Question remains the same. -DePiep (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An article having {{American English}} would say it writes "color, aluminum" etc. {{American English|IUPAC=yes}} (code should be showing) would say it writes "color, aluminium" (all words that IUPAC has defined are overwritten). This would likely occur in chemical articles, adhering to the formal defined chemicals spelling. HTH. - DePiep (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the chemical usage as it stands now. I just want to know if this proposed merger would - in articles that use common American English usage, and are not chemical in nature - have the templates on those pages retain the aluminum spelling variant in that particular template (a spelling which is both common and correct in the general American vernacular). Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The common American English vernacular of Aluminum for American English and Aluminum for IUPAC/chemical usage will be preserved won't it? I just want to make sure I understand what will change and what won't. I'm not arguing that merging and deleting the redundant templates in the service of efficiency isn't a good idea, I'm just stuck on where aluminum and aluminum will appear in the proposed merged template. Shearonink (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My 14:24 post should have shown the template call in code to point to |IUPAC=yes parameter setting. Sorry for creating confusion. -DePiep (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand what you posted above. Anyway, I'll pretend that I do - coding is not my strong suit. I just wanted to make certain that the visible evariants between aluminIUM & aluminUM were preserved in the forthcoming/proposed template. Shearonink (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2018 (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).
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 2018 February 1. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:21, 1 February 2018 (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).