Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 July 9

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< July 8 July 10 >

July 9 edit

Template:History of Thailand 1932–1973 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 relisted on 2022 July 17. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:28, 17 July 2022 (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:1998–99 Australian Baseball League 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 00:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NENAN. No links outside of main article. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2022 (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:2008 CPBL season 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 00:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NENAN. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2022 (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 data Dijk en Waard 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. But, allow for re-creation in the future if there is a flag to add. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dijk en Waard has no flag of its own (yet). This template requires a flag image, though, but a placeholder flag does not fit, nor the province or country flag in my opinion. Better to delete it and recreate when it has a flag of its own. Thayts ••• 12:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are many Country data templates like this, some with placeholder flags like this one and Template:Country data Maashorst just below this entry. Some of them even have flags, but they are non-free and cannot be used in the CD templates. Most of them fly the flag of their countries, provinces and so on. Does Dijk en Waard fly no flag? or does it fly the flags of its province, North Holland, and its nation, the Netherlands? Either or both of those flags,   &   respectively, can be used as aliases/variants for Dijk en Waard. I think we should be improving these, not deleting them. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 23:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— (this discussion continues in the entry below this one) —

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 data Maashorst 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. But, allow for re-creation in the future if there is a flag to add. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maashorst has no flag of its own (yet). This template requires a flag image, though, but a placeholder flag does not fit, nor the province or country flag in my opinion. Better to delete it and recreate when it has a flag of its own. Thayts ••• 12:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are many Country data templates like this, some with placeholder flags like this one and Template:Country data Dijk en Waard just above this entry. Most of them fly the flag of their countries, provinces and so on. Does Maashorst fly no flag? or does it fly the flags of its province, North Brabant, and its nation, the Netherlands? Either or both of those flags,   &   respectively, can be used as aliases/variants for Maashorst. I think we should be improving these, not deleting them. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 23:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(merged discussion continues here)

As far as I know, these templates are meant to show the flag of the subject itself. In this case, the municipality simply has no flag and there are more municipalities in the Netherlands without one. They may fly the flag of the province or country, but that doesn't make it their flag. In my opinion, putting the province flag as the main flag is not an improvement. A flag-alias-xxx parameter should be used for this, at most. To prevent a placeholder with a question mark being displayed at Municipalities of the Netherlands without using a flag that is common for more municipalities in that list (like the province flag), I put a blank placeholder as I actually also did with Template:Country data Dijk en Waard. However, this is of course also not the real flag, so the best compromise would be to delete the template and let the flag templates handle the missing template (as they already do). I think that the improvement that should be made is to allow the country data to provide no flag at all, nor a placeholder with a question mark, and have the flag templates properly handle a missing flag too. Thayts ••• 07:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah there is little point in having a flag template that does not display a flag. Gonnym (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I already take issue with is known. I also take issue with your statement, "They may fly the flag of the province or country, but that doesn't make it their flag." My city has no flag; however, there is a state flag and a national flag, both of which my city flies. They are my flags. I flew my national flag from my home on a recent holiday that honored my country's deceased soldiers. It is my flag. Just as my state flag and national flag are also the flags my city flies and are our flags, the flags of a province and country are most assuredly their flags. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 18:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A different notion of ownership. Let me put it this way: the municipality has not been assigned a flag representing itself and only itself. Let's stop this word game. Thayts ••• 22:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is where you go wrong. If it's a game of words, then "ownership" is a loser. I don't "own" my national and state flags. It's a matter of being proud of my country's origins, proud of the hundreds of years of progress, and therefore proud of the symbols of my nation and state, the flags, the seals, even the state birds. Are you saying that you think the people of Maashorst and Dijk en Waard are not proud of their national and provincial flags? Because that is exactly what you sound like. These CD templates should fly both flags: that of their provinces and that of the Netherlands. I don't know, Thayts, maybe it's my Dutch ancestry getting in the way. If I were you, I'd withdraw both of these deletion suggestions and allow the CD templates to fly the flags. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 02:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, let's not do a word game. This has nothing to do with pride, that is what you make of it (you sound very American by the way). I'm just trying to have these templates be used the way they are supposed to be used: to store the flag of the subject itself, not of any of its parent divisions. I suppose it also doesn't help that this kind of templates was originally introduced for country data (where one could argue that a country always has a flag representing the whole country) and started being used for subdivisions as well. Thayts ••• 08:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Word games again. If you truly believe those things, then you're going to be very busy deleting thousands of these templates, because the majority of them are entities that are part of their larger entity, their country/nation. And many of them do not have "their own" flags, but use the flags of their larger entities. When you're done, you'll have a much larger edit count at least. And yes, I'm proud to be an American! Spread the good! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 01:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you, but totally irrelevant for this discussion. I've said it all. Thayts ••• 07:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You brought it up, my friend, no? Anyway, two CD templates out of thousands won't make much of a dent. And if they're deleted, someone who does care about them will just recreate them again. Not me though; I'm just going through all of them trying to make improvements. Up to the v's, so almost done. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 08:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not bring up the pride BS. I don't care about all those other templates right now, those are not under discussion here. Thayts ••• 09:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(you sound very American by the way) – as if it were a bad thing to be an American. Well, it's not a bad thing, not a bad thing at all. Done with this! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 10:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You brought up your Dutch ancestry, I only said that you sounded American to me instead. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, only that it's irrelevant for this discussion. Please, let's not have emotions get in the way of a rational discussion. Thayts ••• 12:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
heh... emotions? No emotions, my friend. You don't care about these CD templates; I don't care about 'em. But somebody cares, like the editor you informed who actually created these. He hasn't been active since March. He had a reason for making them, you know? Probably trying to get his flags up on Commons so they can be used in the CD templates. You probably wouldn't want to put yourself in his shoes, I guess. Ah well, another fun day editing Wikipedia, eh? No big deal. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 13:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and since ancestry was mentioned again, mine's a real melter, 'cause I hail from three American Indian groups as well as Dutch and some Scottish. Why, there's even a few Neanderthal genes in there I'm told. Yes, America... that great melting pot of the globe. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 14:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You keep blaming me for the stuff you brought up yourself to begin with. And for your information, the person who created these templates did not set any flag. I can only guess to what his intentions were, but now I'm proposing to delete them for the reason mentioned above. Let's have a discussion about that without hard feelings. Thayts ••• 15:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's cryptic! I just said "since ancestry was mentioned again". Never blamed you for anything. Guilty conscience? heh. As for this ill-conceived deletion subject, I've said all I wanted to say. Someone keeps stimulating more. Nice day. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 20:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This template has no value as it stands, as flag-using templates default to an empty flag. As usual, I oppose last-ditch expansion proposals like that by Paine Ellsworth; if there were truly a need for such an expanded template it would have been discovered independently of TfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it is useful to have a placeholder flag in articles like Municipalities of the Netherlands, where this template is currently used, I think the best answer for subnational entities without flags is to redirect this and similar templates to {{Country data Example}}, which is a template created specifically to display blank flag icons where they are needed. If this place ever adopts a flag, the template page can be converted easily from a redirect back to a real template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Flaglist}} already defaults to a blank placeholder if the country data template is missing. You can see that for other municipalities without a flag in that list. Besides, that example one shows a white flag and not a transparent one. Thayts ••• 07:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't notice that. I am changing my position to delete, then, since a blank flag icon will be displayed properly for this entity with no flag. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, without a flag, this is pointless. as stated above, template:flaglist knows what to do when there is no country data template. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No flag. Therefore, what good is there for a flag template if there isn't a flag for this municipality? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2022 (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:Prefix pages/doc/demo 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 keep. ✗plicit 12:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The demo is unused. Q28 (talk) 06:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 163.1.15.238. Nom reason is invalid. The page is used not via transclusion, but to demonstrate the parent template's function by having an existing page at the title. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 163.1.15.238 * Pppery * it has begun... 16:26, 11 July 2022 (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/2022_July_9&oldid=1098823373"