Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 9

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< January 8 January 10 >

January 9

Template:B.

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 {{

c.}} and {{circa}}, leave the others be. Closing early due to overwhelming consensus. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Propose merging

Template:c., and Template:Floruit
.
These four templates give generally the same output, namely <abbreviation><year>. I see no reason to have four different templates that do essentially the same thing. Proposing they be merged into a meta template, maybe {{year abbr}}, with the main templates being wrappers that send the word to be abbreviated (born, circa, floruit). Open to other merging options (modules, etc). Primefac (talk) 19:37, 9 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:See section

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 any additional functionality of {{

See section}} into {{Section link}}. The resulting template should be located at {{Section link}}. ~ Rob13Talk 00:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Propose merging

Template:See section with Template:Section link
.
"See section" is largely redundant to "section link". The only major difference is the text output; it would be trivial to modify the latter to allow for the article title to follow the linkz. Primefac (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why include a link to the main article if the subsection is what's desired? Primefac (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 03:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge functionality of
    Template:See section with output syntax of Template:Section link – I agree that there is no need to link to the main article when there is already a link to the desired section, but I like the ability to link to multiple sections if necessary. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 10:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    slink}} also allows for multiple section links. I know that doesn't really affect your !vote, but I thought I would mention it for accuracy. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete {{
    See section}} is also easier to use, as errors will almost always be signaled, in language that makes sense to the average editor. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge per above. Pppery 20:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
??? What is above is not a Merge but a Delete. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By above I did not mean "directly above", like you assumed. Pppery 01:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
List of important publications in computer science§Compilers
with the § separating the article lede and the section? If we really want it that is — Iadmc♫talk  17:27, 16 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:Cozi Zuehlsdorff

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 Primefac (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unused and only non-redlinks are apparently acting credits? Frietjes (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Completely unused, even on the subject's own page. Been around since May 2015. Karunamon ✉ 02:45, 13 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 KHSAA Boys Regional Tournament

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 Primefac (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sole pages that used this template were recently deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1966 KHSAA Boy's 4th Region Tournament). No reason for this template to stick around. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:18, 9 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:Japanese Regional League storico

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 as

G8 by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Navbox full of redlinks. WOSlinker (talk) 13:11, 9 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:Chemical synthesis

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 Keep ~ Rob13Talk 00:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wholly duplicates Category:Chemical synthesis. Useless as a navigation template; does nothing the category cannot. Main topic redundantly linked as a "See also" topic, alongside the category - again, redundant. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The template is about different types of chemical synthesis which are not classified in an identical category. For example Radiosynthesis is wide away from LASiS or Biosynthesis. The template can make the navigation possible between the chemical synthesis types. --Sahehco (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all the links in the template are categorized as described above. If they are not meant to be in the same category, why are they in a template named for said category? Furthermore, those few that were not already in the category were described by their articles as belonging there, so I put them there. Now it is fully redundant to the category. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you think so, you have to request deletion more than half of the navboxes. First of first, the encyclopedia is under development and the template has enough capacity to be expanded in future. Secondly, the navboxes are for exact navigation and they are helpful for the non-professional users who don't know what category is. Thirdly, for professional user too it would be bothersome where in a category all related articles are available not the exact articles about a subject.--Sahehco (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to your first sentence,
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Next, it doesn't take much of an ability to use Wikipedia to know what categories are and how they're used. It's day three stuff at the latest. And again, all the articles linked by this template are categorized as previously described; those that weren't already I went to the trouble to categorize as such because their articles specifically said they are forms of chemical synthesis. If others don't belong in the category, I ask again: Why are they listed on a template named verbatim for said category? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
"Substantial overlap" is one thing, but entire duplication is another. Navboxes are intended to function in ways a mere category cannot, which includes logically flowing from one subject to the next. A template like a recording artist's discography is useful as readers can freely move between LPs, singles, live DVDs, and other releases that may have the same parent categories but would not be as freely accessible from each other without the navbox as they would not always be members of the same categories as each other, nor would chronological templates - such as "last album, current album, next album" infoboxes - be able to cover it. Navboxes like the one under nomination, however, are pointless as they do not provide any added functionality; there is already a category that takes care of this task as all its links are already in the category. Navboxes would group related concepts that don't get to have the same category spread across all of them. There is also no way to organize them that helps readers get some understanding of them without needing to click on them; the best we can use is alphabetically, which completely ignores what each concept actually is. Whereas in a recording artist's navbox, each link has context - you know a link refers to a single if it appears under the Singles heading, for example. This may all be grounds for just
fixing the template, but let it be said that I never once explicitly called for this template's deletion in this discussion - this is "Templates for discussion", after all, so any action is better than none (the tag on the template's page may say it's being discussed in accordance with the deletion policy, but I never actually said it myself). If we can give it a facelift that makes it suitable for keeping, that's fine by me. As it stands, though, it's not helpful above and beyond the category. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 00:14, 13 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:LD50

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 I'm withdrawing this nomination, per

WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Article content not permitted to be stored as a template. Would not be difficult to code this into articlespace when needed. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "not permitted" is there a specific guideline you are referring to? It seems like this template is in line with other templates in Category:Typing-aid templates. 73.170.41.47 (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's just part of
we probably just haven't gotten to them yet - I was looking through Category:Chemistry templates when I ran across this one. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The exact guideline is the first bullet point of
WP:TMPG. As a minor procedural point, it says "should not", not "not permitted". Primefac (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Point taken, but it has been applied in the sense of "not permitted". That is the precedent as I understand it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 22:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, it's just a formatting tool. No real article content in the template. The only meaning of LD50 in Wikipedia is "Median lethal dose", the other articles on the disambig page are just cultural references. Maybe the template could be moved to {{Median lethal dose|LD50}}. Explicit formatting is more difficult, and may be inconsistent. Teaktl17 (talk) 07:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or make subst-only as a pretty straightforward case of article content being stored in templates. Pppery 20:29, 10 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:Airport icon

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 Primefac (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete template replaced by {{Rail-interchange|air}}. Useddenim (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as deprecated. It is only transcluded into itself and its own documentation page. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 10:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems like an easy call as this temple is obsolete ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 17:38, 10 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:Altaic languages

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 Keep Primefac (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly used and is already discussed by article infobox. 2001:DA8:201:3512:9D:C95D:A943:7F57 (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 2001:DA8:201:3512:9D:C95D:A943:7F57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This appears to be a PoV-based nomination of a controversial (in the real world) linguistic categorization to help "get rid" of it from Wikipedia. Everywhere a discussion about the
    Altaic language family comes up, dispute ensues. The language family (to the extent linguists accept that it is one) is small for navbox purposes (it would show only the top language families of Asia that are, in the Altaic theory, closely related), so it would automatically be "hardly used" like any navbox with a small scope. The nomination doesn't make sense. Infoboxes don't "discuss" anything, and they are not navigation aids, but abstracts of article details, ergo they don't pertain to what is or is not in a navbox (or category) nor whether it should exist.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Fits
    WP:NAVBOX to a tee. Spurious nom with no good reason articulated for deletion. Karunamon ✉ 02:37, 13 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
).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_9&oldid=1136430064"