Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 October 25

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 24 October 26 >

October 25 edit

Template:Hindu temples in Myanmar 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 November 2. ✗plicit 03:34, 2 November 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:Subdivisions of Szczecin 1954–1976 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and only four links. Covered better by Template:Szczecin. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:38, 25 October 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:East Sikkim image map 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:25, 25 October 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:Merging from 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 no consensus. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with template:Being merged (which can take a dir=from parameter). I have used this after closing merge discussions for its more specific text, but it seems pointless without a "Merging to" partner template that mirrors the text; after all, the guidance of the template would be much more pertinent to editors looking at the source page rather than the target page.

So if there is no support for adopting the text of this template for both directions, I would suggest turning this into an alias for template:Being merged with the dir=from parameter. Felix QW (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While similar these two templates have different meaning. One is more specific stating that "a number of articles" are being merged into that article. This message can help draw out editors to assist with a possibly heavy time-consuming load. The other template meanwhile is broad saying "This page is being merged", this is not helpful as it gives no indication of the workload. I would actually rename the template to a "Merge-to" or the like as it indicates that a number of articles are coming to the tagged page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: Thank you very much for your comment! Just so that we are on the same page – the "number of articles" text is not actually shown in the typical use case. It is just on the template page because it is the default text if the name(s) of the article(s) to be merged is not specified. Similarly, the other template also displays the name of the page it is being merged to, when specified.
In all uses I know of, the page names are fully specified. Felix QW (talk) 16:06, 26 October 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:RB-NRW style 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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/DB Regio NRW Frietjes (talk) 17:59, 25 October 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:Mystery Case Files 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 03:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox for a video game series with three articles. Nothing that can't be explained in a section on sequels or in a see also section. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:40, 25 October 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:National Medal of Arts recipients 2010s & 2020s/doc 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 by User:Fastily per WP:CSD#G7 (non-admin closure) Frietjes (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no extra explain what a template does and how to use it.it doesn't functional. see here. Miha2020 (talk) 14:54, 25 October 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:Kirkcaldy Kestrels 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 12:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template containing nothing but a redirect to a non-existent article. Articles for these semi-pro seasons are unlikely to be created under current guidlines. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:41, 25 October 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:Hexcolor-to-hue 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 userfy. Moved to User:DePiep/Hexcolor-to-hue. Anarchyte (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or incoming links from discussions. Created in mid-2021; does not appear to have been adopted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Useful and intended for color developing. So, when calculation is done, usage may be discarded, but result be used elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If user would prefer to have it on hand for personal use, userfying is fine. --Izno (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, or move to user space. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 31 October 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:Infobox field hockey 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 03:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Infobox international hockey competition}} using |winners_fhw=, |second_fhw=, etc. for women's tournaments AND |winners_fhm=, |second_fhm=, etc. for men's tournaments. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object – Laughable, compare ice hockey and field hockey, totally different sports. --Aleenf1 03:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose as Template:Infobox international hockey competition is specific to ice hockey, a different sport. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment @Joseph2302: Except it is not specific to ice hockey. Can you name any parameters that {{Infobox international hockey competition}} doesn't accept from {{Infobox field hockey}}? –Aidan721 (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a ton of ice hockey specific parameters e.g. winners_ih, winners_ihw, winners_ihj. Can't believe this is even being discussed any further, as they are two distinct sports, and seems like a WP:BIAS to be trying to merge field hockey an ice hockey template (merging a non-North American sport to try and fit into the North American sport). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also a ton of field specific parameters e.g. winners_fhm, winners_fhw, winners_fhu, so that's a non-argument. And I'm not merging to an ice hockey template. I'm merging to a hockey template, which covers bandy, field hockey, ice hockey, roller hockey, etc. Hockey is an umbrella of multiple sports. What does sport origin have to do with this? Both sports are played globally. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And there are loads of parameters in the field hockey template that aren't in the ice hockey one (according to their respective documentations). Like young_player, goalkeeper, fair_play. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think issue of Manual of Style is taking into account too, it seems like he did not know. --Aleenf1 15:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, it's not an ice hockey template, it's a hockey template. Please refer to it correctly. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And, as a matter of fact, those parameters you mention are included in the hockey template. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose, different sports. why not merge all association and gridiron football templates too, since football is in the title? this change is not a great idea and should be reviewed. however, I would support having a generic competition template (e.g., like Template:Infobox sports competition event) but where you can specify the sport so it can be used with a variety of different sports, and generate the team link and flags appropriately. Frietjes (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Would this not be a step towards creating a single template for all sports? –Aidan721 (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What you mean by all sports? An association football merging with American football and Australian football? Aleenf1 01:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Would this not be a step towards creating a single template for all sports? It would, but that would be a terrible idea, because most sports have separate requirements and parameters specific to their sport. As both ice and field hockey do. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    no, this is not the correct step towards creating a single template for all sports. having a different parameter suffix for every sport is insane, which is why the recent changes should be reviewed and probably reversed. Frietjes (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per above and i agree with Frietjes about the edit(s). Kante4 (talk) 09:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose just noticed this discussion to delete the field hockey template, if this happens what will replace the current uses of it? How many times is it used presently? It is in most years related to the Men's England Hockey League and the Women's England Hockey League. There must be multiple other uses too. Additionally seems like a lot of work for no particular reason and most importantly surely field hockey as a sport should retain its own templates. Pyeongchang (talk) 14:42, 27 October 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_October_25&oldid=1120358034"