Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 July 1

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 30 July 2 >

July 1 edit

Template:IIT Schools of Management 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) 00:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, the exact same set of navigation links is available as a line in {{Indian Institutes of Technology}}, which is included in each of these articles anyway and seems more appropriate. Muhandes (talk) 19:10, 1 July 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).

Template:India squad 2008 AFC Challenge Cup 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) 00:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus that only top international tournaments (namely, AFC Asian Cup, Euros, Gold Cup, Libertadores, Confederations Cup, and World Cup etc.) get these templates. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that in Asia, football level is far different. Countries like India or Philippines are not known to be football-bases, and so is Tajikistan or Lebanon. For them, this is their biggest tournaments they played. Of course it has no longer exist, but so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIFAmania (talk • contribs) 15:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, there is established consensus that these tournaments do not merit templates. GiantSnowman 07:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unused and per nom Hhkohh (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. S.A. Julio (talk) 12:31, 2 July 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).

Template:London Buses route 2 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. Primefac (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why this template should be kept. Firstly, it is unused and we never have route maps that look like this for any other bus routes. Secondly, it is quite useless as it is only saying that the route 2 goes from Marylebone to West Norwood. It already says this in the main article; London Buses route 2. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unused and unlikely to ever be. Ajf773 (talk) 18:50, 1 July 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).

Template:London Buses route W7 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) 00:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template with no foreseeable encyclopedic use. Even if this template is to be used on London Buses route W7 (which doesn't exist as a standalone article; only a redirect), it would be deleted via deletion discussion as it is a non-notable bus route. This template is very unnecessary. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unused and we shouldn't have these templates for non notable bus routes. Ajf773 (talk) 10:57, 1 July 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).

Template:London Buses route 331 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) 00:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not transcluded. Is not a railway route and fails WP:NOTGUIDE. Ajf773 (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. There is no standing article for London Buses route 331 and there is no need for this template. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason, I am also going to tag and nominate Template:London Buses route W7 for deletion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 21:55, 1 July 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).

Template:SingSing 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 2018 July 12. Primefac (talk) 02:50, 12 July 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).

Template:Oscar Nominated Best Documentary Feature 90thAcademy Awards 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. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As with the now-deleted Template:Oscar Nominated Best Film Editing 90th Academy Awards, excessive templating, very few items to link. Since when do we have boxes for nominees in only one Oscar category for only one year? Ribbet32 (talk) 04:06, 1 July 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).

Template:Tfd2 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 Speedy close. Will refile a new TfD because of my mistake :-) (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 07:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Catfd with Template:Tfd2.
Can we use |module=:Category in {{tfd2}} after adding some options to {{tfd2}} instead using {{Catfd}}, thanks. Hhkohh (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean to merge {{catfd2}} instead. If not, Oppose as the templates are completely unrelated. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:33, 2 July 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).

Template:Infobox California legislation 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 to Template:Infobox U.S. State legislation. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox California legislation with Template:Infobox U.S. State legislation.
Procedural nomination on behalf of someone who proposed the merge wrong. They posted on the talk page the following:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Merge California and New York legislative infoboxes into a common State legislation infobox

I see two problems with the previous merge requests:

  1. The proposed destination of U.S. legislation infobox was a very heavy template compared with New York legislation infobox and California legislation infobox
  2. The U.S. legislation infobox is clearly geared towards U.S. National Congress

Instead, I'd like to merge the California infobox and New York infobox into the more dynamic state legislation infobox. This means:

  1. States still display their own seal
  2. None of the complicated U.S. National Congress options will muck up the template
  3. All of the other features of each infobox can are 100% compatible and kept

The only other concern in the last merge vote was that different states can have peculiar methods. I agree, but in the time since the last vote no differences have manifested themselves in these infobox templates. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am neutral in this.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:49, 1 July 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).

WWII British AFVs 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 to Template:WWIIBritishAFVs. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:WWIIBritishTanks, Template:WWIIBritishSelf-propelledArtillery, Template:WWIIBritishAPCs, Template:WWIIBritishCars and Template:WWIIBritishExperimental with Template:WWIIBritishAFVs.
All were sub-templates contained entirely within the latter, the latter has now been expanded to include that content. None of these templates listed for merger are contained on content pages. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:48, 1 July 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).

Module:IP 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 keep. Primefac (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Module:IP with Module:IPAddress.
I don't see why Wikipedia needs to have more than one module relating to IP addresses {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no objection, but it seems like busywork to me. i wrote Module:IPAddress about 5 years ago, per some request in wp:vpt and as an exercise in lua. apparently, this module is used by some pretty busy templates (i think Template:IsIPAddress, which in itself is used all over the place).
merging it into Module:IP requires some serious testing for regressions, with no value added. in addition, Module:IPAddress was apparently copied to 8 other wikis, as can be seen by its interwiki. in short, this proposal has > 0 risk, require non-negligible amount of work, and provides, IMO, 0 value. as i said, i do not object, i just don't see the value.
as to the question ("why Wikipedia needs to have more than one..."): maybe wikipedia does not _need_ to have more than one module dealing with ip addresses, but i don't think this is the right question: the question is, since wikipedia already has more than one, does it "need" to merge them? peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These two modules function very differently. Module:IP returns a lua error for an invalid IP, and does so in such a way that it's not straightforward to use pcall() to trap it. Module:IPAddress, on the other hand, is very useful for identifying whether or not something is an IP address. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 02:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that Module:IP would benefit from a function that reported whether a given string was IPv4 or IPv6 or invalid, without fuss. However, a module could use pcall(IPAddress.new, ipstr) to get a result without error. I haven't thought enough about the issue to cast a vote yet, but in principle everything could be merged into one module that would do all things for all people. The simplicity of what Module:IPAddress does is worth keeping IMHO (although using global function names is not needed). Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnuniq: It's not that straightforward. Pcall won't trap the error unless it's wrapped in an anonymous function, so you have to use pcall(function () return IPAddress.new(ipstring) end), which is a bit unweildy --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 13:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Module:IP is long and complex, and is full-protected due to its primary purpose which is to handle the sensitive IP addresses. Module:IPAddress is much shorter and has a very simple aim, namely to check if given text is or is not the correct syntax for an IP address. If it ever gets expanded to something grander a merge could be considered, but until then it is cleaner to keep its simple purpose in a simple module. Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, fixed. -- GreenC 17:20, 9 July 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).

Template:Botstatusheader 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) 00:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, orphaned, lacks a documentation, outdated, has not been edited since 2015, has not been substantially edited since around its creation.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:51, 1 July 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_1&oldid=849889339"