Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 July 16

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< July 15 July 17 >

July 16

edit

Template:Zuri-Metzgete

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 18:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox with just two links. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:52, 16 July 2019 (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).

Caltrain s-line templates

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 -FASTILY 02:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{S-line}} templates for Caltrain. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Caltrain. All transclusions replaced. There are four dependent s-line data modules which should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2019 (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).
edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 17:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TFD#REASONS, 3 - The templates are not used after Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138#RfC about marking the Featured portals process as "historical". Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2019 (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:Portal nav

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TFD#REASONS, 3 - The template is not used. Redundant with Template:Portal information sidebarGuilherme Burn (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2019 (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).

Portal navbar series

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 17:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TFD#REASONS, 3 - The templates are not used in any portals. Only used is Template:Portal navbar no header2 Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2019 (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:AAF roster

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. Already deleted by Fastily. (non-admin closure) -- Trialpears (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unused Frietjes (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2019 (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:User wikipedia/OTRSAccess

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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:User OTRS. (non-admin closure) -- Trialpears (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:User wikipedia/OTRSAccess with Template:User OTRS.
practically the same.. with only logo different. Viztor (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2019 (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:Ironman Heavymetalweight Championship

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 22:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

recently tagged for deletion by the author. not a serious title. list of champions are in the main article. Frietjes (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2019 (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).

BART s-line templates

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 -FASTILY 02:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

s-line data modules

{{S-line}} templates for Bay Area Rapid Transit. Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/BART. All transclusions replaced. There are 24 dependent s-line data modules which should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2019 (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:Decades

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Hddty. (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2019 (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:Hierarchy of the Catholic Church

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 18:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template. The contents can easily be added to the article Hierarchy of the Catholic Church The Banner talk 10:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that there are also factual inaccuracies. One thing that stands out is that I don't think that it is right to show 'Lay' at the very bottom, because I think that this is not the position of the catholic Church. In fact, sacramental marriage ranks above consecrated life in the Order of precedence in the Catholic Church. If at all the template is retained, this needs to be corrected. The Discoverer (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2019 (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 province or territory of Canada

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 22:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous deletion talks

Replace and delete

Province or territory of Canada-specific wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, with limited transclusions (13!), on pretty stable sets of articles. Subst:itution will reduce the maintenance overhead, reduce the cognitive burden for editors, and enable articles to benefit more immediately from improvements to the current parent template.

Note: Despite being named "Infobox settlement" the template is not only used for settlements. Per its documentation, Infobox settlement is "used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country".

  1. No other {{Infobox settlement}} wrapper has that few transclusions
  2. Only two wrappers for first-level country subdivisions exist (the other has 89 transclusions)
  3. Except for provinces and territories, Canada already uses {{Infobox settlement}}

Cf. Wikipedia:List_of_infoboxes/Geography_and_place#Place 77.11.163.184 (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - If it isn't broken then don't fix it as this looks to be a solution in search of a problem. I fail to see this maintenance issue per the template's sparse editing history [1], [2] What exactly is the maintenance issue? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As pointed out in the nomination it is broken, because out of thousands of articles about territorial entities in Canada, 13 use an extra template that is not used anywhere else. The others use {{Infobox settlement}} which is used in 500 000+ articles about places all around the world, i.e. thousands of editors know the standard template. TerraCyprus (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Knowledgekid87, I fail to see this maintenance issue per the template's sparse editing history - If you failed, why you voted Keep? If new features are implemented in the infobox that is wrapped by the one in discussion, namely {{Infobox settlement}}, then they might be needed to be implemented in the wrapper too. Thus, a "sparse editing history" could also be a proof that nobody is implementing new features here. 78.54.200.249 (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are only 13 transclusions because that's how many provinces and territories there are in Canada. Like Knowledgekid87 I don't see what the problem is. I doubt that subst:ing this infobox (so that the template's complex code is added to the page in place of the transclusion) would reduce the cognitive or maintenance overhead. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ivanvector, Like Knowledgekid87 I don't see what the problem is - then why did you vote? 78.54.200.249 (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, this is a community discussion. Do you have a point to make or are you just trolling? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ivanvector, this actually applies to you. Why did you vote if you didn't even see the reported problem? 78.54.200.249 (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure I can't expand on my earlier comment. It's not that I don't see the reported problem as you put it, I don't believe the problem as stated by the nominator actually is any kind of problem, and thus I see no compelling need to fix it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ivanvector, why should there be a dedicated template for 13 Canadian items? It is inconsistent with the usage elsewhere in the English Wikipedia. Of course, one could have one infobox per type, (here it is actually one infobox for two types, province and territory), but how many types exist? In Canada alone, since types are defined by provincial law, and there are also federal entities, maybe 10? Or 20? Or in the USA, just on some higher levels there could be 10+ types. The UN has 193 member states, some country-like entities that are not UN members exist, and then assume 10 types for each, so 200 * 10 = 2000 templates. But 2000 such templates don't exist. Why an extra template for 13 (!) Canadian entities?

77.11.201.49 (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple .....only on 13 pages so that the Wikiproject involved can change parameters for the articles under their purview with ease. I take it those involved in all these types of mergers are nor aware that this type of merger is one of the reasons Wikiprojects are in decline. Projects spend countless hours working what parameters are relevant.....just to have them mergered by non editors.--Moxy 🍁 21:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't I warn you about IP-hopping just yesterday? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector not to my knowledge. 77.11.201.49 (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Visualisation of Canada place infobox usage
Infobox usage on articles about places in Canada

TerraCyprus (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC) // TerraCyprus, in the caption I changed "Austria" to "Canada". 78.55.133.168 (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is just a Canadian variation of USA's {{Infobox U.S. state}} and England's {{Infobox English county}}. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete Totally unnecessary, infobox settlement works perfectly. No need to copy the U.S. state infobox mindlessly. TrailBlzr (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace and delete per above and per most of the recent discussions. I'll just repeat my sentiment from previous discussions: the wrapper system is not the correct way this should be handled, and instead a new module system similar to how the french wiki does this should be worked on. As it stands at the moment, I support the one template model for the reasons stated above by others. --Gonnym (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikiprojects make theses so they don't have to deal with unwanted parameters being filed. --Moxy 🍁 02:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Moxy, can you relate your statement to the numbers presented above that 3659+ articles about territorial entities of Canada alone do not use a wrapper around Infobox settlement and only 13 do? It seems "Wikiprojects" didn't "make theses" for most - does that mean they have other ways "so they don't have to deal with unwanted parameters being filed" or are they filled but they do not deal with them? Also, why is there no other Infobox settlement wrapper with that few transclusions in the English Wikipedia? 78.55.155.203 (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : General consensus in the English Wikipedia seems to be to delete the wrappers that have few transclusions:
Wrappers with less than 200 transclusions are usually deleted
Wrappers with less than 20 transclusions have never been kept
Some items blue in the list, due to redirects
Template Transclusion count
{{Infobox Austrian district}} 88
{{Infobox Bangladesh district}} 63
{{Infobox Belgium settlement}} 31
{{Infobox Bulgarian province}} 30
{{Infobox Canton}} 27
{{Infobox Chaco}} 25
{{Infobox Chilean region}} 16
{{Infobox County Romania}} 19
{{Infobox District PT}} 17
{{Infobox District Slovakia}} 80
{{Infobox Egyptian Governorate}} 29
{{Infobox England region}} 11
{{Infobox Finnish former municipality}} 82
{{Infobox French region}} 32
{{Infobox fylke}} 20
{{Infobox Fylkeskommune}} 19
{{Infobox German Regierungsbezirk}} 33
{{Infobox German state}} 23
{{Infobox Greek prefecture}} 13
{{Infobox Helsinki subdivision}} 90
{{Infobox Hungarian settlement}} 306
{{Infobox Kelurahan}} 1
{{Infobox Kenya county}} 3
{{Infobox Korean settlement}} 448
{{Infobox Latvian district}} 28
{{Infobox Latvian municipalities}} 114
{{Infobox London Borough}} 34
{{Infobox Luxembourg commune}} 119
{{Infobox Luxembourg former commune}} 20
{{Infobox Maldives}} 234
{{Infobox Maldives atoll}} 30
{{Infobox Neighborhood Portland OR}} 95
{{Infobox Nepal district}} 75
{{Infobox Omaha Neighborhood}} 1
{{Infobox Palestine municipality}} 434
{{Infobox Partido Argentina}} 214
{{Infobox Peru region}} 26
{{Infobox Philippine region}} 18
{{Infobox Prefecture Japan}} 55
{{Infobox Province of China (PRC)}} 29
{{Infobox Province Peru}} 191
{{Infobox Province Spain}} 38
{{Infobox Province TR}} 81
{{Infobox region of Italy}} 21
{{Infobox Russian city district}} 1
{{Infobox Russian governorate}} 40
{{Infobox Scotland council area}} 35
{{Infobox Scotland county}} 23
{{Infobox Singapore neighbourhood}} 119
{{Infobox South African municipality}} 296
{{Infobox South African town}} 2,114
{{Infobox St. Louis neighborhood}} 79
{{Infobox Town AT}} 2,411
{{Infobox townlands}} 87
{{Infobox UAE community}} 83
{{Infobox Ukrainian oblast}} 26
{{Infobox Ukrainian raion}} 400
{{Infobox Uruguayan Department}} 19
{{Infobox Venezuelan municipality}} 216
{{Infobox Venezuelan state}} 23
{{Infobox Vienna District}} 27

78.54.117.60 (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment : tens of thousands of pages about items in the Americas use {{Infobox settlement}} directly.
 
In the Americas, except for 1) USA : 50 states and the counties 2) Canada : 10 provinces, 3 territories - all of the articles about territorial entities use {{Infobox settlement}} directly, i.e. also thousands of US and Canadian articles use {{Infobox settlement}} directly. By switching 13(!!) articles to direct usage of {{Infobox settlement}} Canada could join the one-template-independent-of-type setup of Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe, Africa [except Cape Verde islands]

77.11.201.49 (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Admin note - closer please note that the various IPs in the 77.11.x.x, 78.5x.x.x, and 89.14.x.x ranges, are all very likely being used by one editor to badger this discussion with graphics about the situations in other geographic areas and similar unrelated points. See [3] for more info. Please weight accordingly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin note 2 - closer please note that the claim by Ivanvector graphics about the situations in other geographic areas and similar unrelated points [4] seems to have no substance, since the documentation for {{Infobox settlement}} has: It should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country, for which {{Infobox country}} should be used." - which has no restriction on the geographical context and there is also no single rule that general design decisions should no be applied to items related to Canada.
  • Admin note 3 - closer please note that the adhominem statement by Ivanvector from 14:31, 30 July 2019 [5] which may be a violation of WP:AGF is likely based in the fact that he voted "keep" and was asked about how his favored special treatment for Canada would scale, with a ping 12:31 [6] . Also, to my knowledge there was no warning "about IP-hopping just yesterday". I am only aware of please do not rapidly change your IP address if you are able to control it, it makes it very difficult to contact you. I realize that you may not have control over it [7] . A bit weird that Ivanvector is now turning the content discussion into a fight against me. 77.11.201.49 (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JJMC89 could you have a look at this one? 77.11.201.49 (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is enough content unique to these regions to warrant a seperate infobox, primarily the sections about federal representation and legislature. This template also use wikidata to fetch certain information which won't be appropriate if the template is deleted. Regarding the arguments for deletion I think "cognitive burden" related arguments are far outweighed by having custumization parameters such as blank2_info_sec1 and demographics1_title3 directly in text which will understandably confuse editors not familiar with the intricases of this specific infobox. The more convincing argument about changes performed to infobox settlement won't apply here has some merits, but is severly overstated. The template is already a wrapper making many updates apply directly without editor intervention including copyedits, parameter removal, field re-arrangement, plural logic changes and most other common changes. In the unlikely event new parameters are added to IB settlement that are desirable for these articles they would indeed have to be added here manually, but this is so rare that it isn't even close to outweighing all the negatives. --Trialpears (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    content unique to these regions? - Trialpears, could you provide more weight to that claim? How are the 10 provinces and 3 territories more unique than, e.g. the provinces of Argentina, the states of Mexico, the townships in the United States, the divisions of Pakistan, the regions of Chile, the cantons of Ecuador, the departments of Honduras, the federal district of Brazil, the district municipalities of South Africa, the regional municipalities in Canada, the regional county municipalities in Canada, ... 77.183.70.51 (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sad, no substance provided. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Trialpears, do you know how many classes of territorial entities exist on planet earth? Can you explain what would be your rule for when a certain type gets an extra template? You support it for Canada based on "content unique to these regions" - but that surely would apply to each "region" on planet earth? Shall there be a template for each "region" (500000+) or for each set? So far, you provided no evidence why 10 provinces and 3 territories of Canada should have a combined template seperate from the standard solution. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This template also use wikidata to fetch certain information which won't be appropriate if the template is deleted - Trialpears, it only fetches population related information, what do you mean by "won't be appropriate if the template is deleted". Are you aware of "Category:Template:Metadata Population", i.e. the fetch code could be outsourced to a data template, which then can be re-used in other places? 77.183.70.51 (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Trialpears - any comment to this section? 77.183.70.51 (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This will be my last comment on this page as I believe the current conversation take us no closer reaching consensus on this issue. If you have something important to tell me regarding this discussion pleas tell me on my user page as I will unwatch this page.
    I have no problem with any type of region having specific infoboxes if they have useful specific fields or features as this template do. If someone were to create a well desinged infobox with improvements over using infobox settlement directly for departments of honduras or even bouroughs of New York I would be all in. This is not about some wouldn't-it-be-elegant-having-only-a-few-infoboxes-for-everything idea but about improving the encylopedia which this template do. --Trialpears (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    blank2_info_sec1 - Trialpears, that is a misuse anyway. Template:Infobox region symbols is the standard way here. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Trialpears - any comment to this section? 77.183.70.51 (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    demographics1_title3 - Trialpears, "Per capita" - why would GDP per capita not be something applicable to 400 000+ other entities that use Infobox settlement directly? 77.183.70.51 (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have clearly explained that there is content unique to these regions through political representation and their legislature. Regarding the other stuff argument I can very well see that these may also have unique things that should be in their infoboxes, but that is not a relevant question. For wikidata I see that it's definitely possible to do it without the specific templates, but I still find that as a small loss in accesibility since most editors don't know how to use it, and more importantly: it's not unlikley that these templates are removed in favour of hard coded values. There are also other automatic calculations that would have to be put in other templates if they are to be kept, such as percentage area and percentage senate seats. For infobox regional symbols I think it should be called instead of the blank options, but it would still be more complicated then it is now for editors not familiar with that 100 transclusion template using a different parameter naming scheme than the main template. Finally I think adding GDP to infobox settlement would be good and encourage you to discuss it at Template talk:Infobox settlement. --Trialpears (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Trialpears, do you know how to use indention of comments? GDP was at "*:" to reply with ":::" moves your reply out of the whole "*" block. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do, however interweaving responses to individual points is generally discouraged per the talk page guidelines which states: "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what" I therfore prefer leaving my entire comment in one block. --Trialpears (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Trialpears thanks for moving it into the "*" block. Now your reply goes to "*:'''demographics1_title3'''" but includes text related to Wikidata, a topic addressed in "*:'''This template also use wikidata to fetch certain information which won't be appropriate if the template is deleted'''" which belongs to a seperatly signed message. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wouldn't normally advocate a separate infobox template for just 13 articles, but I really don't see any tangible benefit in the merge here: the template has a large number of specific parameters, and replacing it with the generic one will result in hugely bloated wikicode. – Uanfala (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical issues with the current template: Currently the display is Flower, Tree, Bird - but no section header. What do they mean? The standard solution is to use Template:Infobox region symbols, which displays the section header "Symbols" 77.183.70.51 (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow up: Code is in sandbox 77.183.70.51 (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that is actually a problem and not intentional, it is easily fixed and does not prescribe deletion. Seems to me that it is intentional, though, since none of the other subsections of the infobox have section headers, and readers ought to be able to infer from context that the article Ontario listing "Flower White trillium" in its infobox is communicating that the white trillium is the provincial flower of Ontario. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Side discussion about wikicode
Ivanvector, do you know how to use indention of comments? You used "::" but there is no ":". 77.183.70.51 (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know how indenting works and responded to your bullet without adding my own bullet because that's what I meant to do. You've responded to at least three comments in this thread with no reply of substance but only aspersions about an editor's competence with respect to indentation. Please stop double-pinging me. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector - Yes, I know how indenting works and responded to your bullet without adding my own bullet because that's what I meant to do. - What do you mean by "my own bullet"? You intendent "::" but there is no ":" - it means, there is simply no reference. WP:ASPERSIONS only talks of misbehavior, but I don't see your wrong usage of "::" as a misbehavior. Re Please stop double-pinging me. - I have no idea what you mean by that. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indenting is merely a visual aid to indicate that one comment is a reply to a previous comment in a threaded discussion. The ":" you seem to be looking for is the "*" (your bullet) in the first line of your original comment with one level of indent; my comment with two levels of indent ("::") was originally directly below it before you inserted a new bullet point in between your comment and my reply. Your obsession with formatting seems to be trying to distract this discussion from the topic at hand, please stop. FYI: "double-pinging" (I may have invented that term) is where you insert a reference to an account in your edit and again in your edit summary - this causes the user to be notified twice for the same edit. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector, re "double-pinging" - didn't know that feature, which could be a bug, will try to keep in mind and avoid. Re "merely a visual aid" - surely not and it will not "aid" those readers that have no vision at all. Re "Your obsession with formatting seems to be trying to distract this discussion from the topic at hand" - You repeatedly make comments that seem to violate WP:AGF and may fall under WP:ASPERSIONS. Your ad hominem statement that I would be obsessed has no substance. Stop it. 77.183.70.51 (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@77.183.70.51: our side discussion here is not helping reach consensus on the fate of the template, but I'm interested in your views on indenting methods with respect to accessibility. Would you like to continue this discussion on my talk page? I would take it to your talk page but your IP (and thus the location of your talk page) keeps changing. Feel free to do so; I'm going to collapse this sub-thread momentarily to remove the distraction. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:21, 31 July 2019 (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:Thomas A. Simone Award

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 22:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything needs a navbox. Only 10 entries out of 36 have articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:14, 16 July 2019 (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:Confucius Peace Prize

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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) 22:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A trivial template that fails WP:NAVBOX guidelines; basically nobody has actually accepted this prize, it's solely the pronouncements of one insignificant group. Only transcluded on one page now (disclaimer: after I removed it from some of the "winners"). Originally created by a now-banned editor. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_June_21#Category:Confucius_Peace_Prize . SnowFire (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and use. It actually does not fail the guidelines and is in fact an accepted practice to have a navigation template for winners of an award notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. See {{Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture}} as an example of an award that no one (or mostly no one) "accepted" and yet it has an article, a nav template and is placed on all articles. I have no idea how notable the Confucius Peace Prize is, but if you think it isn't, then nominate it at AfD and if it gets deleted, this will follow. --Gonnym (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gonnym: It's notable enough for an article, but its notability is not exactly as a prize if that makes any sense. I suggest you read the main article. The Confucius Peace Prize was notable as a reaction to the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobao and the "empty chair" and all, that China might set up a rival prize and was unhappy with the result there. Basically every "prize" post-2010 was a non-notable continuation that, to the extent it received any coverage, was considered a "news of the weird" ha-ha type thing. The Golden Raspberries... okay, to be honest, I think that template is borderline too, but the Golden Raspberries are very notable and legitimately are mentioned in retrospectives on movies, and they're also the kind of award you'd expect people not to accept. That's not the case here; this award is far less notable than the Raspberries (absolutely nobody will write a retrospective on Fidel Castro saying he won this award at age 88, by which we mean a statue was handed to a random Cuban student in China. I am not making that up. [10]) Basically, "has an article" is not a good standard here, this is closer to a political party that won a few seats in 2010 and still technically exists, but gets <1% of the vote ever since, they shouldn't have their later pronouncements subsisting on the fumes of legitimate older notability from 2010. SnowFire (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As nominator says, it poorly adheres to the criteria at WP:NAVBOX. 1: Yes, it's a coherent subject. 2: No (only about half of recipient articles mention the prize) 3: No, these articles mostly don't refer to each other. 4: Yes there's an article on the prize. 5: No, if not for this navbox, it's not the case that editors would be inclined to link many of these articles in the "See also" sections of the articles. Such a navbox puts WP:UNDUE attention on an award that, for most of these winners, is not a remotely noteworthy aspect of their career. Colin M (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2019 (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:WikiProject Australian law

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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 redirect to Template:WikiProject Australia. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian law, users are supposed to use {{WikiProject Australia|law=yes}} to assess articles. Therefore, this template serves no technical purpose.

It's currently existing uses could potentially be served by making this a wrapper, but I would say the safest bet is just to make it a redirect to {{WikiProject Australia}} as to avoid the redundancy. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:07, 16 July 2019 (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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_16&oldid=1141875625"