Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 July 20

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< July 19
July 21 >

July 20 edit

Template:Indian Air Force ranks 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 23:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The template was probably intended to look like Template:USAF DOR O-10. It looks terrible and should not be added to articles. Perhaps userfy until appropriate files for it are created/added. Also, the majority of its liks are red links, which is against the spirit of WP:REDNO. —Alalch E. 21:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Air Force ranks and insignia of India uses a different table. Gonnym (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2023 (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 element/symbol-to--(118rows)/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 23:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. Gonnym (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2023 (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 element/symbol-to-simple-substance/overview/row2-rowspan-content 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 23:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No transclusions or documentation. Marked as deprecated. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2023 (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:Chembox/develop/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 delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused subpage with no parent page. No incoming links that might explain what it is for. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2023 (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:Asian Games cricket women's tournament 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) 15:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template, winning these tournaments isn't a defining characteristic that warrants a template between winning teams. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Expand Not enough instances to justify navboxes. Could be modified to be 'Asian Games [gender] cricket tournament medalists'. MsJoat (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2023 (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:R with Wikidata item 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. However, it appears there could be consensus to delete if the system that automatically adds the redirect to the category could show the Wikidata information on the redirect page. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned by Pppery (talk · contribs) at the CfD for the associated category, this template is not needed because Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item is populated automatically whenever there is a Wikidata item. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a template-protected page, I cannot TfD-tag this template myself. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. Created this a while back (from splitting a previous template used to tag both hard and soft redirects) but I suppose it does not serve a huge purpose. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The automatic category is useful because it is a means to capture all the hard Wikidata redirects (not the soft redirects). {{R with Wikidata item}} not only categorizes hard redirects, it also conveys information to editors about the categorization and the Wikidata number and location. The automatic categorization does not convey such info to editors. Just as with all the other rcat templates, the information provided by this rcat template can be very useful to editors. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I would prefer to merge this and {{Soft redirect with Wikidata item}} back to {{Wikidata redirect}}, as I even don't know whether there are discussions to treat hard and soft redirects separately. Pinging @Glovacki: for ideas. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's a long story, editor Liuxinyu970226. The short version is that the meta template used by most rcat templates is {{Redirect template}}, which by design is unstable and unsuitable to be used with soft redirects. So after much discussion, much of it on the Village pump, it was thought better to treat hard and soft Wikidata item redirects with separate rcat templates. Merging could not be done because of template {{Redirect template}}'s instability on soft redirects. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion regarding this can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect § Template:Wikidata redirect vs Template:R with Wikidata item. — Qwerfjkltalk 09:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per P.I.E. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sort of people who need to know that a redirect is connected to Wikidata can figure it out in several other ways, such as the presence of a "Wikidata item" link in the sidebar. People who can't figure that out likely have no reason to care. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i find this model useful but agree that we can merge both (soft and hard redirects). i disagree with those who say « you can always find the little link burried in the list of links in the sidebar ». following this approach, we can say that from all of those "redirection" models: you can guess that a redirect goes to a section when there's a #name_of_the_section in the link, you can guess it redirects from a person when the redirect is the name of a person, etc, etc. you even don't need Wikipedia actually, because we can always find the info in the sources. --Deansfa (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Merging the templates does not make sense. This was intentionally split, as hard and soft redirect templates have a different look and function differently. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a third proposal: Merge this back into {{wdr}} but use {{#invoke:redirect|isRedirect|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}} to determine if the page is a hard redirect or not and use the two templates if it is or isn't.
    Outside of that, I support keeping this as a concept. I don't mean to get WP:WAX, but the same could hypothetically apply to every rcat: why have the rcat when you have the categories? For clearness. There is a clear indication why this redirect exists and what's special about it. Just being a category would make that less clear. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 06:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with all redirect categories, maintaining this is a fair amount of work for pretty marginal benefit, so automating should be our goal wherever possible. How exactly does Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item populate? Could we get redirect pages to show Wikidata information in the same way without actually having a template? If not, I'm more with P.I.E. for keeping than Pppery for deleting. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:06, 28 July 2023 (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).

Dáil by-election navboxes 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:Dáil by-elections. Izno (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging all to a new Template:Dáil by-elections. This is a series of navboxes where one would be fine.

Since the start of the 2nd Dáil in 1919, there have been only 136 Dáil by-elections to Dáil Éireann (the lower house of the Oireachtas, Ireland's parliament). Chopping them up into a series of 24 navboxes impedes navigation, so I have created at User:BrownHairedGirl/Dáil by-elections a draft of a merged template, which is ready to roll. (If the closer finds a consensus to merge, please feel free to move my draft to the template namespace.)

The rate of Dáil by-elections has fallen significantly in recent decades. Since the start of the 30th Dáil in 2007, there have been only 14 Dáil by-elections. At this rate, it will be another 16 years before the cumulative total reaches 150.

Only 31 of the 136 by-elections so far have a standalone article (see Category:Dáil by-elections). So we have 24 navboxes for 31 articles. Even by listing every by-election (usually by linking to a section of a broader article), 10 of these 24 navboxes list fewer than 5 by-elections.

The current series appears to have been created on the model of the equivalent series for the UK House of Commons. (See e.g. {{By-elections to the 48th UK Parliament}} and more at Category:United Kingdom by-election navigational boxes). This model is appropriate for the UK, where there has been 460 House of Commons by-elections since 1950, an average of 6.3 per year. But it is unhelpfully elaborate for Dáil Éireann: in the same 1950–2023 period, the Dáil has had only 89 by-elections, an average of only 1.2 per year.

The gap in numbers seems to be widening. In the 2020s, there has been only one Dáil by-election; but the UK HoC has had 16, three of which are happening today. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support The new template looks very good, well put together! Iveagh Gardens (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a single template and delete the entire list. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: looks like a good well thought out job as usual. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: We don't need separate navboxes for each Dáil. Also, I was halfway through drafting a navbox before realizing you already made one... CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 05:46, 26 July 2023 (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:Geller–Bing family tree 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 List of Friends and Joey characters. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Created by a blocked user. Four links and five transclusions, which can all be found at {{Friends}} Painting17 (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep relatively useful, per WP:BE. 90.255.6.219 (talk) 10:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more opinions regarding a merge to the list article (which I note has two other family trees hard-coded into them) and potentially using LST to transclude usage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the hard-coded family trees were created by the same ban-evading sockpuppet who made this template. Painting17 (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the 4 people listed at that template that are not redirects are all listed at {{Friends}}. No need for a family tree template of 80% redirects back to the same list. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2023 (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:Communities in St. Catharines, Ontario 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) 03:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have never started a TfD discussion before so please keep that in mind. I'm proposing this template for deletion because most of these neighbourhoods are just redirects back to St. Catharines and that seems to go against what is outlined at WP:TG. I noticed the template awhile ago because it used to include a hill in the city and a boat lock as "neighbourhoods". I would also like to note that most of the redirects back to St. Catharines are my doing since they don't meet the requirements of WP:GEOLAND. Thoughts? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The merge angle is a valid one, though posted somewhat late in the nomination; relisting to get more thoughts on that possibility.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 07:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They were turned into redirects by the nominator who probably should have done that first before coming to TFD. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator did some good work by making the good navbox to replace this bad navbox, that was already quite bad before anything he did, so let's get this done with :)—Alalch E. 23:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a guy, but I appreciate the sentiment behind your comment. Thank you. Some of the redirects were already made before I started the TfD (in some cases months/years ago) and others weren't. I agree with WikiCleanerMan that I should have double checked that most of them actually were redirects like I thought they were before coming here, but I can't change the past. As I said before, I do actually really care about St. Catharines-related articles. I'm glad I was able to eventually figure out how to create a new navbox... I haven't done much with templates as a Wikipedian. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. {{St. Catharines}} seems like a much better approach. On review of the page histories, the new template does not appear to be a fork of the old one. But if it is, then a histmerge would be sensible as proposed above. -- Visviva (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2023 (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/2023_July_20&oldid=1167717296"