Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 October 12

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< October 11
October 13 >

October 12 edit

Template:People of Danjong of Joseon edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 restore to older version. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow • talk 20:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly unintelligible and has so many redlinks that it's not particularly useful toobigtokale (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and restore to 2014 version (all blue links) and move back to original title at {{Six martyred ministers}}. Otherwise delete. (I was the original creator of the template in 2006, but although I have some opinions about what its content should be, I don't have any terribly strong feelings about whether it should exist.) This navbox trundled along in happy obscurity for its first ten years, but seems then to have become the subject of a well-meant but inevitably doomed attempt at navbox-first article development. I'm sure there is plenty of room for expansion in our coverage of the 1450s power struggle, but until that expansion actually happens, we don't need a navbox to facilitate navigation among articles that don't exist. -- Visviva (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a much better infobox with a better scope, agreed. That makes sense. Weak support for that plan. I'm a little split because I think an infobox with six links is of mild use (still somewhat useful because most of the articles it's on don't enumerate all six of them), but on the other hand the infobox exists in two other languages and could be expanded by another person at some point. toobigtokale (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can go for this restore to the 2014 version cited. It meets enough links for a navbox to provide navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Top male singles tennis players edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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) 20:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This entire family of templates has been converted to wrappers of {{Top male singles tennis players by country}}, which auto-updates the rankings. Additionally, there are ~90 countries total represented by this new template/module; having only a single template means that if that number changes we do not have to create new templates just to incorporate the new country that makes the list (and I am obviously not in favour of creating templates for the other 30 countries that do not yet have them). Primefac (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The data is pulled from Module:ATP rankings, which is automatically updated weekly by a bot." - it was not updated this week (2 Oct). What's wrong? Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pelmeen10, Taavi, looks like it was updated here on October 2, but that update was for September 26? Frietjes (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely the PDF used as the data source wasn't updated by the bot run happened at around 11 UTC. I've moved the run to much later in the day to hopefully prevent that from happening in the future. Taavi (talk!) 19:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with {{Top male singles tennis players by country}}. If I understood correctly from the nom and the /doc page, using {{Top male singles tennis players by country|ITA}} returns the same result as {{Top Italian male singles tennis players}} with the major difference being that {{Top male singles tennis players by country}} does not require manual updating of the information. This seems like a great upgrade. Gonnym (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect each template for the previously mentioned reasons. Makes more sense than delete. This way there would be less data lost (deletion won't save Wiki space) and if for some reason the new auto update fails (currently relies on 1 user), we could switch back to old. Example {{Top Italian male singles tennis players}} -> {{Top male singles tennis players by country|ITA}}. Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Redirect" is not an option that is available for technical reasons. You may suggest to make each of these templates a passthrough, but this has the disadvantage of retaining template pages with assorted documentation. Izno (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Izno; keeping them as wrappers would be taking on technical debt for no reason. HouseBlastertalk 12:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Attached KML/Massachusetts Route 131 edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 23:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This template is unused as Massachusetts Route 131 redirects to Route 131 (Connecticut–Massachusetts). Gonnym (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Attached KML/Massachusetts Route 121 edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 23:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This template is unused as Massachusetts Route 121 redirects to Route 121 (Rhode Island–Massachusetts). Gonnym (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Attached KML/Connecticut Route 193 edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 23:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This template is unused as Connecticut Route 193 redirects to Route 193 (Connecticut–Massachusetts). Gonnym (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Attached KML/Connecticut Route 189 edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 23:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This template is unused as Connecticut Route 189 redirects to Route 189 (Connecticut–Massachusetts). Gonnym (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WikiProject Requested articles (admin) edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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:WikiProject Requested articles. ✗plicit 23:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:WikiProject Requested articles (admin) with Template:WikiProject Requested articles.
These two WikiProject banners are for the same project. It seems the only difference is that the "(admin)" one is used for non-article pages. Every other project tags article pages and non-article pages with the same banner. There shouldn't be any issue to do the same with these. Gonnym (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the purpose of the admin template is it tag pages that are part of the administration and maintenance of requested articles, while the non-admin template is for the creation of articles through the requested articles process. That isn't the same as other projects, as the articlespace template is just an article history event, the same as an WikiEd course banner, editathon banner, GOCE banner, ARS banner, DYK banner, on such articles that were edited. Instead the article-space version should be converted to such an article history banner format. -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any text in Template:WikiProject Requested articles that is similar to WikiEd or editathon banners. The text says This article is within the scope of WikiProject Requested articles, because it was formerly listed at Requested articles. which is almost identical to This article is within scope of WikiProject Requested articles because it is used for the administration of the Requested articles process. Please direct any queries to the discussion page.
    Even after the merger, the text can still say the same exact thing by checking if the page is an talk article space or something else. Gonnym (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the template is to tag articles that were created through the Requested Articles process. There's no subject area for improvement of an article after it has been created and existed for a time with the requested articles process, unlike say WP:POLITICS, as there is no longer a need to involve Requested Articles, thus it is just like a course project, editathon, AfC, GOCE, ARS event in the history of an article, and not a topic area subjectmatter wikiproject template, where one can go and ask about what this article topic is, what is within the scope of the wikiproject is just the creation of the article, and not te content of the article forthwith. -- 65.92.244.127 (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The use of a task force or one of the other potentially ad hoc supported parameters in a WikiProject seems entirely reasonable to me. Izno (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_12&oldid=1181245616"