Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 June 22

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< June 21 June 23 >

June 22 edit

Template:CPTM Stations/Line 7 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 03:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are all regular tables placed in single-use templates. Subst to articles and delete templates. Gonnym (talk) 23:54, 22 June 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:TVQ 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) 02:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was a prior consensus to delete this template, but Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 May 24 found that it should be reconsidered. This is a procedural nomination; I am neutral myself on its merits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Explanation The reason I no longer believe the deletion of TVQ is necessary—as the one who supported it prior to the original TfD last year—has to do with the underlying database. TVQ is the TV Query template linking to a database maintained by the Federal Communications Commission in the US. At the time of TfD a year ago, this database was frozen in amber. The FCC has for years been effectuating a transition of broadcast databases from an older system known as CDBS to a system called LMS. TVQ was only pulling from CDBS, but years of television changes were recorded only in LMS. This meant some stations' records were so out of date as to be completely inaccurate, especially given major changes in TV channel allocations between 2017 and 2020. There is another template, {{FCC-LMS-Facility}}, that links to most of the same databases, but each transclusion of TVQ has to be manually edited with a new parameter to be replaced by FCC-LMS-Facility.
The underlying issue is no longer the case, and TV Query now uses data from LMS and is up-to-date. There is no need to delete this template when we also have {{AMQ}} and {{FMQ}} (which, in radio, did not have as pressing a data accuracy issue vis-a-vis LMS as TVQ), templates that never needed to be deprecated at any time. This template is fine for use, even if there are fewer uses of it. My !vote is Keep. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie does {{FCC-LMS-Facility}} do the same thing as this template? Do they both link to the same page? If so, then I'd argue that deprecation of this template should still continue as we shouldn't have two templates doing the same exact thing. Seeing as how {{FCC-LMS-Facility}} is more used (4304 vs 598), that one should be the one kept and used. Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They do not, Gonnym. They link to different interfaces that mostly poll the same underlying data.
FCC-LMS-Facility requires a Facility ID. For instance, let's use KTVH-DT (FID 5290) with {{TVQ|KTVH-DT}} and {{FCC-LMS-Facility|5290|KTVH-DT}} and see what we get (click on both to see the different pages they yield).
The LMS template has more uses because it works for radio stations (or anything with an FCC Facility ID) and because we proactively removed TVQ from hundreds of pages. Radio stations have their own query templates, {{AMQ}} and {{FMQ}}, which I never intended for total deprecation and are still in place in the vast majority of articles. (At the time, radio was much less intensively using LMS than TV, so it continuing to be primarily a CDBS-based query was not a major problem, and in any event LMS info is now used throughout the Query family.) The radio and TV station infoboxes can call an LMS link automatically for most US stations, but there's a quirk of the way they're coded that means that I can't recommend their use on most low-power (-LD/-LP) radio and TV stations. (They generate links to public inspection files as well, which do not exist for that class of station. I could avoid this if I could detect call signs ending in -D, -LD, and -LP...) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now, tone down deprecation notice The main concern people had with this template was that it was generating broken/outdated links, but the link target has been fixed, so using the template is no longer such a bad idea. As such, this should probably be a "templates for merging" discussion at this point, as we now have two templates with the same purpose, both of which are currently functional.

    Unifying everything to use {{FCC-LMS-Facility}} seems like it's probably a better idea in the long term – that template takes more information than this one, so it'll be easier to update for any future changes to the URL targets, and the two have much the same purpose – but I don't think there's any particular urgency for the merge. As such, I'd recommend updating the documentation of this template to suggest using {{FCC-LMS-Facility}} instead (but as a recommendation rather than a direct order to use the other template), and updating FCC-LMC-Facility's documentation to remove the "last updated" text and to recommend that the call sign is always specified (in case we ever want to change the links back the other way). It might also make sense for FCC-LMC-Facility to be given an additional parameter, that specifies whether the station is an AM, FM or TV station, so that it could easily be changed to replicate the functionality of {{AMQ}}, {{FMQ}}, and {{TVQ}} if the external links in question ever change again.

    There's also been discussion about merging this template with {{Infobox television station}}, which seems reasonable (in particular, Facility IDs are the sort of information which could do with being listed in the infobox), but likewise not particularly urgent and is something that can wait until someone wants to do the work. --ais523 02:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

    @Ais523: If so, then I guess it's the time we list this to Holding cell for the proposed merger? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Infobox television station generates an LMS link if an appropriate |licensing_authority= string for the FCC is added and an FID is specified. (Look at the bottom of the infobox on, say, KMSB.) Low-power stations haven't had this flag until now because Gonnym helped me with the logic needed to avoid excess links. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning continued deletion. It has 223 transclusions left. That seems very doable in terms of replacement with {{FCC-LMS-Facility}}. --Gonnym (talk) 05:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    124 transclusions left. Changing to support deletion. This thread has proven that converting the remaining transclusions to use {{FCC-LMS-Facility}} is very doable. Gonnym (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Two user talk page transclusions left. This discussion is pretty much moot now. Gonnym (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to {{FCC-LMS-Facility}} As explained above, there's need to completely convert the remote uses. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with so few transclusions left, any uses on talk pages can be substituted leaving nothing left. The {{FCC-LMS-Facility}} template link loads much faster and provides more targeted information. The TVQ template generates a "search page" result which is generally discouraged under item 9 in WP:ELNO. I do agree that it would be even better to move FCC facility links to the facility ID in the infobox, but again, that would be a link by the facility ID and not a search by the call sign. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Replying after closure of discussion to note to @Plastikspork that this is possible now—it's just that |licensing_authority= hasn't been set for all the US articles. Prior technical limitations have been lifted. Any active US station should have this parameter set (in radio and TV as it works the same way). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:45, 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).

Template:2021 in Republic of Ireland football 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 12:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Template:2021 in Republic of Ireland association football. Creator was later blocked and couldn't be notified. Santiago Claudio (talk) 11:15, 22 June 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:Popcorn 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 12:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with no main article (it was just deleted) and only two blue links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:28, 22 June 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:International Islamic University Malaysia alumni 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 12:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions. This should be a category (which already exists at Category:International Islamic University Malaysia alumni), not a navbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:26, 22 June 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:About-redirect 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) 20:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was delete after replacement as discussed. 45.132.253.56 (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where was that discussion? Gonnym (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator may be referring to the TfD of {{Distinguish-otheruses}}, but we should probably consider this template separately (in particular, what's the specific proposed replacement for this template?) --ais523 02:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh, this is probably a request to replace {{about-redirect}} with {{about}} and {{redirect}} used separately, by analogy with the previous discussion, but it wasn't expressed very clearly. --ais523 02:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Replace with {{about}}+{{redirect}} and delete — {{about-redirect}} produces This article is about lights used for signalling. "Stoplight" redirects here. For other uses, see Traffic light (disambiguation) and Stoplight (disambiguation).. {{about}} and {{redirect}} separately produce This article is about lights used for signalling. For other uses, see Traffic light (disambiguation). (line break) "Stoplight" redirects here. For other uses, see Stoplight (disambiguation). There isn't much to choose between these – I think the latter is probably a little clearer, and as such there's no real need to combine them into a single template. Having this as two template uses rather than one is also easier to maintain and understand. --ais523 02:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Replace per ais523. We shouldn't mix different hatnote statements like that: for example, a reader may arrive at Traffic light who's instead looking for one of the other topics with the name, but when they start reading the hatnote, they may reach the bit that says "Stoplight redirects here" and then assume that the hatnote is not for them, when in fact it is – the link to Traffic light (disambiguation) is further down on the same line. If on some rare occasion it's really necessary to combine disparate hatnote statements into the same line, then that's better done by using one of the standard hatnotes with a custom text a parameter. It's not helpful to have separate templates for each possible combination of hatnote statements: the system of templates is already complex enough. – Uanfala (talk) 13:02, 24 June 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_June_22&oldid=1097582900"