Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 7

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

May 7 edit

Template:Transit visibility table 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 2019 May 15. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 15 May 2019 (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 Nepal district 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 after replacement with {{Infobox settlement}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replace and delete

Zones, provinces, development regions, municipalities, villages, village development committees etc. already transclude {{Infobox settlement}} directly - only districts currently use a different system. Reduce number of templates for which editors have to read and understand the documentation, and reduce burden of maintenance.

District-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions (<100), on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.

Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". 78.54.98.165 (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Visualisation of Nepal place infobox usage
Nepal place infobox usage by type of place
Type Infobox Example
zone {{Infobox settlement}} Gandaki Zone
province {{Infobox settlement}} Province No. 1
development region {{Infobox settlement}} Central Development Region, Nepal
municipality {{Infobox settlement}} Patan Municipality
village {{Infobox settlement}} Naumule (village)
village development committee {{Infobox settlement}} Padukasthan VDC
district {{Infobox Nepal district}} Bara District
Infobox usage on articles about places in Nepal

77.13.227.168 (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there any problem that this is trying to solve? This infobox has dedicated fields for several demographic indicators that are commonly used in this part of Asia (like sex ratio or literary rate), and trying to format each of them using the generic fields of {{infobox settlement}} will get really cumbersome. – Uanfala (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above statistics were added after I commented, so I guess I should add: yes, other administrative units of Nepal use the generic infobox, but I'm not sure this is the optimal state of affairs. In the absence of any other considerations, I'd be in favour of converting those articles to a generalised version of the nominated template (something like "Infobox Nepal settlement"). – Uanfala (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Uanfala, Re 1: Yes. Re 2 (sex and literacy): Outside Nepal ("this part of Asia"?) humans have sex and literacy too. Re 3: why a box on the country level, why not "Infobox Asia place", or "West Nepal place", or "Earth place" (=Infobox settlement). What about former countries, "Roman Empire place", "Persian Empire place"? Currently more than 1000 pages use Infobox country, so for each country an infobox would mean creating ~1000 infoboxes - each with almost the same code. 77.191.43.101 (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was that there demographic indicators like sex ratio (that's the ratio of the number of men to the number of women) and literacy rate are much more important in South Asia than in other places (the first largely due to still lingering practices like female infanticide, the latter because it's still so low). These things are much easier to add and maintain with the current infobox; compare the way this is currently entered: |male per 100 female = 104 with how it will need to be entered if the template were merged into infobox settlement: | demographics1_title3 = Male [[♂]] /100 female | demographics1_info3 = 104. The fact that such fields are built into this infobox also allows for displaying these indicators in a consistent wau across articles, and so editors don't need to decide on each article whether the sex ratio goes before the HDI or after the poverty rate for example. Another advantage is that it allows for easy maintenance of links: for instance, if an article gets created about the sex ratio in Nepal (the way there is one for India), then it can be linked with a single edit to the template (rather than having to edit each of the several dozen articles). As for your other question, why "infobox Nepal place" and not say, "infobox South Asia place"?, well, all those links are country-specific, so if a similar template were created to cover several countries then it will need to have a "country" parameter and most of its fields will have to contain long "switch" statements deciding what to link based on this parameter. This should not affect how the template is used, but it will make maintaining it more laborious. – Uanfala (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    FUD.
    1. Sex and literacy parameters can be added to the Template:Infobox settlement so that 420 000+ articles can directly and another 80 000 indirectly profit from it. These parameters are not restricted to Nepal districts..
    2. Linking country-specific articles named in the format "XYZ in countryname" is nothing new, for code see Template:Asia topic.
    78.55.44.164 (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose per my comments above: I don't see a case for a merge. The template uses about two dozen customised infobox fields, which will become cumbersome to edit and difficult to maintain if the template were merged. – Uanfala (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a case for a merge. - A merge was not proposed. The case for subst:itution has been presented above for everyone to see. 78.55.44.164 (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for my imprecise language. Should have used "substitution and deletion" instead of "merge" above, but I don't think this makes any material difference. – Uanfala (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete per nom. The problem this solves is described at Wikipedia:Infobox consolidation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete - as the graph shows over 4k Nepal related locations have the settlement infobox and these 40ish articles use a different one. Agree with points by nom and Andy. --Gonnym (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete - simplify editing and maintenance. TerraCyprus (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it will not simplify editing: it will make editing the infobox on individual articles more laborious than it needs to be, it will make consistency in the display of demographic parameters across articles next to impossible to monitor, and it will make it so minor changes (like the one I mentioned above about the sex ratio article) will need to be accomplished by editing every single article rather than with a simple edit to the template. These are very tangible drawbacks in this case and I don't see how the airy-fairy statement that consolidating infoboxes is Good squares against that. Are there any concrete problems that will be fixed this way? Any needed functionality that this template currently lacks that will be easier to have with the generic infobox? – Uanfala (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2019 (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:Wide image-flex 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 Replace manually in the one article with functionally equivalent code, and then delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undocumented. Used on only one page, Peace pole. Has a lint error. A discussion on the log page asks what this template is for and asks for assistance removing lint error. After more than 11 days, no response. Suggest editing Peace pole, incorporating there whatever it needs from the template, if anything, and deleting template, unless its author can explain what it is for. Perhaps some other template does what this is supposed to do. Anomalocaris (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace manually in the one article with functionally equivalent code, and then delete. Wrapping scores, which are div elements, in span tags causes Linter errors. It is not clear to me what this template was supposed to do, but since most of the examples in the documentation look terrible, and the template is used only once, we can live without it. Ping me if you need help with the manual replacement. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intent seems similar to Template:Scalable image, on which basis I would recommend deletion as a duplication. --Izno (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2019 (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:2018 football in Sweden 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

duplicates navigation found in the navbox versions (Template:2018 in Swedish football, Template:2017 in Swedish football, ...) and the navbox versions are more complete and don't crowd the article content. Frietjes (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:22, 8 May 2019 (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:K League player 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All links to players are dead and cannot be fixed. Since the K League official website was renovated about two years ago, it doesn't include player profiles using "playercode" in the URL anymore, it is now integrated into their application or something which has fixed URL, so its impossible to keep using this template for external links. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The template has been updated to use a working URL; see the examples in the template's documentation. Also, the former URL produced working links until at least August 2018 (based on a search at the Internet Archive). -- Zyxw (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:22, 8 May 2019 (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:Tobey Maguire 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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not primary creator per WP:FILMNAV --woodensuperman 14:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per prior consensus (director navboxes = good, producer navboxes = overkill). Frietjes (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2019 (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:Antony I. Ginnane 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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not primary creator per WP:FILMNAV --woodensuperman 14:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per prior consensus (director navboxes = good, producer navboxes = overkill). Frietjes (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2019 (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:2016 Manipur State League table 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused after being merged (with attribution) with the parent article per consensus at WT:FOOTY. Frietjes (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:22, 8 May 2019 (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:Dukes of Gloucester and Edinburgh 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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant navigation template that links 3 articles (and will only ever link 3 articles) that are already linked to each other through the article text and other templates, such as Template:British princes. See Wikipedia:Navigation templates#Navigation templates provide navigation within Wikipedia. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not enough links to warrant a navbox. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 15:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Small family of articles that do not warrant further interlinking by template. -- Ohc ¡digame! 18:10, 8 May 2019 (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:Duchesses of Gloucester and Edinburgh 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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant navigation template that links 3 articles (and will only ever link 3 articles) that are already linked to each other through the article text and other templates, such as Template:British princesses by marriage. See Wikipedia:Navigation templates#Navigation templates provide navigation within Wikipedia. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not enough links to warrant a navbox. WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 15:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Small family of articles that do not warrant further interlinking by template. -- Ohc ¡digame! 18:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to the reasons given above, I think navboxes should be inspired by notable topics. I don't think anyone has ever written specifically about the duchesses of Gloucester and Edinburgh as a group. Surtsicna (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2019 (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:Use ymd dates 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per my closure in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 24 this appears to warrant a re-discussion. As a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Pinging the participants of the DRV: @Cunard, Timotheus Canens, RoySmith, Thumperward, DGG, SportingFlyer, Ohconfucius, Trappist the monk, Frietjes, and MureninC: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm largely neutral since the use case for this is small, but it was used when it was deleted and I don't see any problem with its inclusion. SportingFlyer T·C 08:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, harmful. unlike dmy and mdy, MOS:DATE says that ymd should not be used outside of refs, tables, and infoboxes. since these templates are for reformatting dates in the entire article, I can't see a use case that doesn't violate MOS:DATE. if you want a template for marking dates in references, that would by {{use ymd dates in references}} {{use ymd date input in references}}. Frietjes (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't suggest that. If editors want to standardize on ymd dates in references, they should first standardize on the date format for the article using {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}}. Once that selection is made, adding |cs1-dates= with the appropriate keyword will cause cs1|2 templates to adopt, automatically, the desired date format; see the documentation. —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    the reason why MureninC suggested that the template was needed was to allow ymd input for the accessdates. the point is that {{use ymd dates}} implies ymd for the entire article, which would violate MOS:DATE. however, one can use ymd input in references, and have the citation template convert the dates as needed (comment modified). from your objection to a delete comment, I hope we shouldn't assume you would like to keep this template. Frietjes (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not object to your delete comment. If you are referring to this statement by Editor MureninC:
    Recently (in the last couple of weeks), the Template:Use mdy dates and Template:Use dmy dates templates have started being used by the Template:Cite web et al for formatting the dates used in the references; I think this makes it necessary to have the full collection of acceptable date formats that could be specified for use when dmy or mdy don't cut it.
    then I think that Editor MureninC was not clear on the details of how cs1|2 auto date formatting works. Partly that is my fault because I did not include the y and yy keywords in the {{use xxx dates}} documentation because the auto-formatter cannot render all acceptable dmy- and mdy-format dates as ymd-format dates – specifically, Month YYYY, Season YYYY, date ranges of any form, and Julian calendar (before 1582) dates cannot be converted to year-initial numeric format because cs1|2 follows MOS:DATE which only allows the single YYYY-MM-DD numeric-date format and that only for Gregorian dates. Another editor has since added those keywords to the documentation.
    In the deletion review, no one uses the term 'input' and I was the only one to use the term 'access-date' so I don't really understand what you mean by the reason why MureninC suggested that the template was needed was to allow ymd input for the accessdates. cs1|2 have accepted ymd access-dates since forever; with auto date formatting, access-/archive-date format can be specified by choosing the appropriate keyword for |cs1-dates= in the {{use xxx dates}} template.
    What I am objecting to is either of {{use ymd dates in references}} or {{use ymd date input in references}}. I think these to be unnecessary. If editors are going to go to the trouble of globally specifying date formats for references, they would be better served to also specify the global date format for the rest of the article so either of {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}} with |cs1-dates= set appropriately is the proper method.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It was deleted in 2011 and was barely used then. I don't see a use case for it. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{G7}} as far as I am concerned. This template did its job, and can retire with dignity. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per the deletion review discussion, Frietjes comments above and Trappist additional explanation. --Gonnym (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. I've originally nominated this template for restoration a couple of weeks ago, see my arguments over at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 24 § Template:Use ymd dates (closed) (click on [show]"). To summarise: ISO 8601 is a very popular format nowadays in 2019, and it's often used in practice in International English and in open-source software-related articles where English is often used as a lingua franca, as well as by Government Canada and some other institutions. I'm specifically unhappy about the recent change in the way that all the rest of the {{use xxx dates}} templates have suddenly started being used for references, without any agreement by anyone, and without any proper documentation on how to avoid such use (the idea that two different formats could be used in references themselves, one for |date=, and another for |access-date=, makes very little sense to me, and the last I looked at documentation, the ISO 8601 support was only documented for |access-date=). This usage of Latin names for months breaks down the articles, and hinders comprehension of timeline-based events. The idea of an encyclopaedia is to deliver knowledge in a neutral and comprehensive manner. I fail to see how mandating Latin names accomplishes that, and why this template should be deleted without having much of a chance to be used by anyone, on the pretence that noone's already using it. MureninC (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said before, if you wish to rise in opposition to cs1|2 auto date formatting, deletion review wasn't the proper forum; neither is this tfd the proper forum. But, thanks for the reminder. I had meant to include a caveat lector to the auto date formatting documentation that |cs1-dates=y and |cs1-dates=yy may be considered to be at variance with MOS:DATEUNIFY.
    MOS:DATEUNIFY is where a mix of publication date and access-/archive-date formats is permitted and has been since this edit 15 February 2011 (only access-dates were mentioned at that initial edit)
    User:Gadget850/FAQ/YYYY-MM-DD_dates may be of historical interest re: YYYY-MM-DD in cs1|2 citation templates
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The reinstatement is being argued based on a misconception of the use of its cousins. This template cannot be compared to {{use dmy dates}} and {{use mdy dates}}, which are used for maintenance of the two principal date formats used in the main body text of articles on en.WP; it has outlived whatever usefulness it had, if indeed it had any at all, and should be put out to pasture. -- Ohc ¡digame! 17:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You're completely mistaken — {{use dmy dates}} and {{use mdy dates}} started being automatically picked up for references, against the original advertisement and documentation of what the templates were supposed to have been for. MureninC (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Date autoformatting failed. I can assure you that nowhere on WP are the templates {{use dmy dates}} and {{use mdy dates}} ever automatically picked up for any date, least of all for references. -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:12, 9 May 2019 (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/2019_May_7&oldid=908599722"