Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 23

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< December 22 December 24 >

December 23

Template:SharedIPBlocked

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 Relisted on

(non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2017 (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:Hawaiian English

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. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 02:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created

WP:ENGVAR template, unused. Just as with "Californian English", there is no such thing as a specifically Hawaiian variety of Standard written English, so this is useless. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:56, 23 December 2016 (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:Vgrtbl/text

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

(non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Abandoned, unused template. All functions present in this template were originally used by its parent, {{

✉) 19:10, 23 December 2016 (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:Vgrtbl-no

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) 17:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned, unused template. All functions present in this template are included in its parent, {{

✉) 19:09, 23 December 2016 (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:Vgrtbl-tx

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

(non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Abandoned, unused template. All functions present in this template are included in its parent, {{

✉) 19:09, 23 December 2016 (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:Vgrtbl-bl

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

(non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Abandoned, unused template. All functions present in this template are included in its parent, {{

✉) 19:09, 23 December 2016 (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:California English

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. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 02:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use different templates for southern English or New England English or even Cockney, for that matter. There may be spoken differences in regional dialects, but there are no spelling differences, rendering this template moot. John from Idegon (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
talk) 15:59, 23 December 2016 (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 former country

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. The opposition argues that mergers of this magnitude are not feasible due to disparate parameters and displays. Mergers such as this may be complex, but with interested and dedicated editors involved in the process it has been shown on multiple occasions to go smoothly, with only minor order/display changes in the final result. The only reason for these templates to not be merged is if (a) the existing parameters of both templates cannot be kept, or (b) the code really does become so convoluted that it becomes a burden to maintain (e.g. the succession boxes may need to be spun off into a subtemplate to keep things simpler). I encourage both sides of this discussion to participate in the upcoming merger, as it will help ensure a final product everyone can (at the very least) agree on.

(non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Propose merging

Template:Infobox former country with Template:Infobox country
.
Both of these templates need to be converted to use Template:Infobox... I would like to propose that as part of that conversion (which I am happy to do) they should also be merged. A former country just has a couple extra parameters that a current country doesn't have. No need to have them as separate templates. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I second this notion. --Vami_IV✠ 01:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - 'former country' is a subset of country anyway; it should help new editors of articles on former countries become aware of available parameters that may be useful. SamWilson989 (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: @SamWilson989 and Vami IV: one thing to also consider is whether country can just be merged into {{Infobox settlement}}.... --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree with that change. There are clear differences in usage between settlement and country/former country. The whole idea of the infobox is to summarise an idea, an event, or a place at a quick glance. The country and former country infoboxes are indistinguishable, whereas this isn't the case with the settlement infobox, and so merging them would simply cause confusion with the millions who have seen these infoboxes in use for some time. SamWilson989 (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rob984: I just want to point out that your response is basically that you oppose it unless it can be done correctly... The templates would not be merged unless all data can be properly displayed... --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except it doesn't actually work that way. Testing is sometimes not extensive enough, and merges happen anyway because "consensus says so", leaving editors to clean up the mess. From what I'm reading here, everyone supporting the merge thinks its going to be simply and straightforward, and that the templates are "already identical anyway". They're not. The main reason neither of these templates have been converted to Template:Infobox is because they are very complex. The current situation isn't at all inadequate, and both templates function correctly. A merge that is entirely for maintenance purposes should first demonstrate that it actually fixes more problems then it creates. We cannot be certain of that until we have a working template. Rob984 (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rob984: In the past, we've had closes as "merge if feasible for all parameters to be included in OTHER TEMPLATE", and that's worked successfully. Almost all of those happen, but some haven't after additional discussion. Would you have any objection to that type of close? ~ Rob13Talk 00:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: If it is conditional on all parameters functioning as they are now, then I don't have any objection. Some of the subtle differences between these infoboxes are important. Rob984 (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking of our readers

Is there really a need to have this internal bureaucratic discussion posted on all our country pages? As with the mobile view by default...we should invoke no text in this case. More then enough editors will see this by the normal posting on project pages. Again making the average reader read this is pointless and will not help the debate here or inform our readers of anything relevant to what they are reading about..-- Moxy (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we do, most editors dont watch those templates because they cant edit them. I'd have no idea this discussion was happening otherwise. The message isn't a big deal at all. Readers have to deal with all kinds of hat notes related to the maintenance and editing of pages. This small note is hardly obtrusive. Rob984 (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we go out of our way to not have these types of things on FA and GA articles. Waste of time for us having to ask questions why these are all over the place. Those of us that have been here a long time find all this displacement disheartening.--Moxy (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, readers have to deal with the huge fundraising banners which now appear within the introduction article text. I doubt a tiny note at the top of the infobox is much of an issue for them.
Challenge the policy that actually mandates them. And then, if you can't have it changed, stop asking.
Rob984 (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fundraising and internal coding is not the same thing at all. As for policy and the coding yes we have the option not have this all over our main namespace. In fact we do it all the time. -- Moxy (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some opposers above have argued that there are functions (parameters) in the "former country" box that the main "country" box doesn't have. That is not a valid argument against merging: we could simply add these as optional features to the merged template; that's just how routine merging works. A much more serious problem would be if there were features that are in fact common to both templates but have to be handled differently in each. (e.g.: are there parameters that both boxes have, but that need to be displayed in different places or in very different styles, perhaps because they are much more important in the one box than in the other?) – Second, some opposers have also pointed to the large number of automatic categories emitted by the "former country" box. However, please note that these categories are not working well at the moment and that they were never really a good idea in the first place. The
    WP:TEMPLATECAT guideline rightly recommends "that articles not be placed in ordinary content categories using templates". If there is going to be a reworking or refactoring of these templates, we should take that as an opportunity for getting rid of this overgrowth. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Yes, there are fields handled very differently, because the former country infobox shows changes over time to leaders, area, population, etc.. I would probably support this merge on the condition that the infobox at Kingdom of England is used as a test case and all the parameters are to function correctly. If there's any need to remove functionality to make this work, I don't see the point. Rob984 (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2016 (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:FUT2014riders

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 subst and delete.

(non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2014 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2014 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted. The Banner talk 04:05, 23 December 2016 (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:BCF2013riders

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 subst and delete.

(non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2013 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2013 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted. The Banner talk 04:02, 23 December 2016 (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:DPZ2012riders

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 subst and delete.

(non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2012 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2012 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted. The Banner talk 03:58, 23 December 2016 (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:VLL2011riders

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 subst and delete.

(non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2011 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2011 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted. The Banner talk 03:55, 23 December 2016 (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:FEN2010riders

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 subst and delete.

(non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2010 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2010 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted. The Banner talk 03:47, 23 December 2016 (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:MSI2009riders

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 subst and delete.

(non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2009 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2009 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted. The Banner talk 10:58, 23 December 2016 (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:TFA2008riders

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 subst and delete.

(non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2008 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2008 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted. The Banner talk 10:55, 23 December 2016 (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:FRW2007riders

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 subst and delete.

(non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2007 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2007 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted. The Banner talk 04:19, 23 December 2016 (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:UPT2006riders

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 subst and delete.

(non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Outdated template without real use. The riders in the 2006 group are there. That information isn't going to change. There is no reason to have a template (even if used on multiple pages) to convey information that is completely static. Should be merged with List of 2006 UCI Women's Teams and riders and then deleted. The Banner talk 04:17, 23 December 2016 (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:Unblocked

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 Relisted on

(non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2017 (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 EN Standard Details

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 Relisted on

(non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2017 (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:1943 college football independents records

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 ~ Rob13Talk 01:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. GXXF T • C 19:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cbl. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 07:54, 27 December 2016 (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:EngvarA spelling

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 as per nom ~ Rob13Talk 01:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{American English}}. Redirect. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2016 (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/2016_December_23&oldid=1141875785"