Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 September 24

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< September 23 September 25 >

September 24 edit

Template:Xyz edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficiently complicated and horribly-named template only used on two pages. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:41, 24 September 2021 (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:List of ISO country codes edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 00:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dependent on <section /> markup on ISO 3166-1 which was removed from the source page in November 2019, rendering it no longer usable. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:35, 24 September 2021 (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:Hex2dec/nonLua edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old pre-Lua subpages like this should generally be deleted when a working Lua replacement is used (as happened in 2013 in this case). * Pppery * it has begun... 23:35, 24 September 2021 (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:Sort row edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 00:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent failed test, was blanked by the creator (but then unblanked by someone else, so G7 no longer applies). * Pppery * it has begun... 23:19, 24 September 2021 (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:Country shortname edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 00:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused trivial wrapper of {{getalias}} * Pppery * it has begun... 23:13, 24 September 2021 (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:Pct change edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 00:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:55, 24 September 2021 (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:Percent of edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 00:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 24 September 2021 (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:ClimateCommons edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 ... by moving to appropriate sandboxes. Izno (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I started translating and reimplementing functionality from French Wikipedia but have not been able to finish development yet. Would it be possible to save these somewhere for now while I work on it with Wikimedians for Sustainable Development? I'm not sure if there is a form of sandbox for templates and modules. – Anon423 (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Anon423, you can copy the template text and create a userpage, and put the information on there until you think it's ready to be used on Wikipedia. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that someone else has made contributions to it, I believe moving instead would be in accordance with the attribution policy. – Anon423 (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep c'mon, templates don't need to be used immediately. The author is working on them, we don't need to delete them. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it should be moved to the author's module sandbox. There should not be modules in the public namespace that are unfinished or unused. Gonnym (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to user sandboxes. Module to Module:Sandbox/Anon423/ClimateCommons and the template to the user's subpage. Gonnym (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I go ahead and just move it, or are we supposed to wait for the 7 days and let an administrator do it? – Anon423 (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2021 (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:Second Cold War infobox edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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) 14:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a lead image for Second Cold War was debated this year. The result was "no consensus". Recently, an image was used as part of the infobox. I find this an attempt to circumvent what was already decided. The one who created this infobox just created a newer discussion, which to me apparently discusses the same already-resolved matter (but in different approach?), months before creating this infobox. In that newer discussion, the editor also attempted other kinds of infoboxes that weren't accepted by consensus for the article. Furthermore, the infobox itself doesn't provide anything else valuable and worth keeping. Or, rather the infobox contains just an image as the central focal point of the infobox alongside a header and sub-header. George Ho (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this conversation will be read by other people, though I would also like to converse with George Ho, based on the shared background and history that we have. As there is an extensive background which George has raised here. Hi @George Ho:, so you might have already seen my thoughts on what you described as "circumvention", and I hope that we'll be able to clarify that, thanks. Secondly, I don't think that this would otherwise be a circumvention. For the follow-up discussion, I think it is acceptable, the discussion kinda tapered off I guess. I would prefer a more extensive infobox, but there has been much debate and discussion about it, and the course of the discussions can run over quite a long duration of time, which is why I've thought of a simpler box in the meantime. My idea is also that this would be a starting template, and that it might be edited and updated as discussions proceed, so I would like to urge that we shouldn't delete it just yet, thank you. Halo FC (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but I fear that, if expanded, the infobox would resemble {{infobox military conflict}}, which was rejected by the consensus several years ago. George Ho (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, if I remove the map, the infobox would contain just the header and sub-header and nothing else... unless expanded into an undesirable infobox? George Ho (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, no worries, none taken. I think that I could address your concerns, though not sure if I should continue here. Halo FC (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subst the template onto the article. There shouldn't be a separate infobox regardless of the topic. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The infobox would eventually be removed. Before the template was created, this user has twice inserted an infobox that exactly or extremely resembles this infobox (diff 1, diff 2). George Ho (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would mostly depend upon you. I think that I could also address your concerns, though not sure if I should continue here. Halo FC (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion that there should be an infobox. Whether it's the military conflict or any other, infoboxes are the standard templates, not some individual topic one.--WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks WCM. Though would just like to check about this template for example (Template:Infobox Syrian civil war) Halo FC (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the reason there is a separate infobox template is that it has to do with article size. Editing the Syrian civil war and the War in Afghanistan article makes it harder to navigate when an infobox is already a part of the article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it also provides an additional layer of convenience, such as when checking the edit histories. Halo FC (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is part of the reason but as the conflicts have gone on, so has the information about the conflict thus making the main article even longer. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yeah, I understood that, but thanks Halo FC (talk) 04:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete TfD should not be used to mediate a fundamentally non-template-related content dispute in mainspace. What TfD cares about is solely whether the infobox should be in a template, and it should not, because single-use infoboxes do not contain Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages (quote from the lead of Wikipedia:Template namespace), and are therefore outside the scope of the template namespace. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, would just like to check about this template for example (Template:Infobox Syrian civil war) Halo FC (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support substing and deleting that as well, for the same reason. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Though I suppose that it does provide an additional layer of convenience, similar to Template:War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) infobox Halo FC (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated above. Mark83 (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mark, ooh, I was hoping that you'd be able to be with me on this one, or at least not be against it; recalling the points on "mini-me" and as such Halo FC (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then you haven’t understood any of my points despite repeated explanation. You are trying to define a complicated and I’ll-defined concept with this infobox and without reliable sources. I couldn’t be any more opposed to this. Mark83 (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mark83 As I understand it, this is the same as the previous discussion which you're referring to, though sorry, I thought that I had replied to those, and tried to address the concerns? And had explained that I wasn't trying to define it like that, thanks Halo FC (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A can of worms for so many pages about current international politics if implemented. The term is used more as a statement or metaphor than common name. I can not imagine how this could make Wikipedia better. Dushan Jugum (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dushan Jugum, that's interesting, maybe we've identified a genuine can of worms. So I was thinking that this would be a starting template, and that it might be edited and updated as discussions proceed, and so I would like to urge that we shouldn't delete it just yet, thanks. I also had a prior discussion on the 'common name' issue, and I think that it's alright, I could go into more detail if you'd like, thanks again. Halo FC (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is and is not Cold War 1 is still not perfectly clear in the fine detail, but at least there is academic agreement that it is a thing. Books have it in the title as a descriptor, not a thesis or click bait. For Cold War 2 I see double up everywhere, adding nothing. Relating a Page on the China-US trade war to Putin in the Crimea is pointless and 100 other things (until academia says there is a point then I will submit). Wikipedia follows it does not lead, I see more academics use the Term New Cold War to say either we are not there yet or that it is not like the last one, not as a genuine name. Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dushan Jugum, I do see some of your points. Though sorry, could you explain what you meant by "double up everywhere", I'm kinda confused by that. So, as I mentioned above, to go into more detail, I was thinking that this element in the top-righthand corner of the page would just be considered echoing the title of the article Halo FC (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at Vaccine diplomacy, China–United States trade war and Russo-Ukrainian War the editors are happy, the readers are informed, there is peace and perfection. Now imagine this template wielded by unscrupulous editors placed on these and many more pages, no more peace... no more perfection. Its not my main point but if this template gets used a lot it will be used wrongly and if it gets used once, why have it. Doubling up is that these pages already have templates, we don't need another. Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, sorry, I'm not very clear on it, would just like to ask more, why do you think that it'd lead to no more peace Halo FC (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
we might be getting off the main point, for me that is that 'Cold war 2/new cold war' is not well known/used enough yet. Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I see, and noted, though I think that it is a current major global phenomenon, and, compared to other current major global phenomena, such as the pandemic and the dangers of climate change, Cold War II is much more the consequence of deliberate and specific geopolitical actions, thereby placing it in a unique category Halo FC (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:09, 28 September 2021
In other words, you agree to disagree. Is that right? --George Ho (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, I think that it is more that we hope to reason logically to reach a better mutual understanding. Halo FC (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pppery. the infobox should not [be in a template], because single-use infoboxes do not contain Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages. — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2021 (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 NFLE team edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 sports team. Reasonable nomination, no opposition. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox NFLE team with Template:Infobox sports team.
The merge candidate is used much less and has fewer parameters than the sports team template. IznoPublic (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2021 (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:Bj league Three-Point Contest Winners edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No article for this contest exists for it to have its own navbox. Japan's bj league isn't as notable enough as other basketball leagues such as the NBA thus making this contest even less notable. Same as Template:Bj league Slam Dunk Contest Winners nominated for September 23. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No stand-alone article, let alone one that passes GNG. SportsGuy789 (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At a minimum, fails WP:NAVBOX No. 1: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.—Bagumba (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2021 (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:Copy to Wiktionary edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin at en.wiktionary, I was surprised to discover this template still exists. We do not want transwikis, which have not been useful contributions for many years, and consider the transwiki system to be obsolete. The option of a transwiki to Wiktionary should not be a consideration at an AfD here, nor as a "cleanup" measure. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if this is no longer a valid procedure the template should be deleted. I also propose that we actually put some info at Wikipedia:Transwiki rather than a redirect to Meta. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another problem with the transwiki system is that it doesn't take our Criteria for Inclusion into account, so someone who only edits Wikipedia will not realize when they're sending us entries that we do not want. Ultimateria (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 13:51, 26 September 2021 (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:Universities Research Association edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Izno (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This really is not a useful template--it's not even a navigational template in the strict sense of the word, since all it links to are the articles for the universities that one way or another participate in the organization. In other words, it's just a directory, just like the one I just removed from the (rather hopelessly COI-inflected) main article. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia should not be a guide for this kind of stuff. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2021 (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:Ancient monuments in Rome edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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 ancient site. Reasonable nomination, no opposition. Primefac (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Ancient monuments in Rome with Template:Infobox ancient site.
Strong semantic overlap (in contrast to last year's TFM), and I'm pretty sure it would add to what the ancient monuments in Rome would be able to provide in their infoboxes. The former is also much less used than the generic title. IznoPublic (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2021 (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:Canadian federal election, 2019/Port Moody–Coquitlam edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Appears to have been created by mistake and the content duplicates Template:Canadian federal election, 2021/Port Moody—Coquitlam Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harvardyalecornell, thanks for creating this template; however, there seems to already be a 2019 result table at Template:Canadian federal election, 2019/Port Moody—Coquitlam, and, a 2021 one at Template:Canadian federal election, 2021/Port Moody—Coquitlam. Thanks again — Eric0892 (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2021 (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/2021_September_24&oldid=1047962613"