Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 January 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 23 January 25 >

January 24[edit]

Template:West Germanic languages[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) 04:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused; probably replaced by a section in Template:Germanic languages Frietjes (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • This template is not entirely redundant as it makes some sort of selection (unlike {{Germanic languages}}, which lists all varieties within Western Germanic). Still, it would be odd for an article to have both navboxes, so it seems unlikely this template will be used. – Uanfala (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2018 (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:Wettest tropical cyclones in Honduras[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 relisted on 2018 February 3. Primefac (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2018 (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:Whoa there![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 relisted on 2018 February 3. Primefac (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2018 (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:Wikipedia:BADGE/greatanser small[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⚡ 05:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

pointless now that the image has been deleted Frietjes (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as pointless. G8 should cover this IMO. J947 (c), at 03:15, 27 January 2018 (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:Wikipedia:WikiProject Miley Cyrus/Userbox[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⚡ 05:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused duplicate of Wikipedia:WikiProject Miley Cyrus/Userbox (could be history merged if that's important) Frietjes (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Nothing in what links here either. J947 (c), at 03:06, 27 January 2018 (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:Disclosed paid[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 speedy delete per CSD G7. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the intended purpose of this template is. Unlike {{COI}} and {{UPE}} which indicate that there are problems with the content in an article, this seems to be purely focussed on the fact that a particular editor has once edited the article for pay. Seeming as doing so with disclosure is entirely permissible, why is this template necessary? If a disclosure has been made and there are problems with the content then {{coi}} is entirely sufficient. Adding this to articles will only further discourage paid editors from disclosing. SmartSE (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that this tag should be deleted. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • While most of us probably share the concern about violations of COI by some paid editors, this template is approaching the problem from the paid editor perspective (which as noted above is not prohibited) rather than the COI perspective. I agree {{COI}} is the better template to use as it more accurately describes the problem and more correctly advises the reader to be cautious about the article content. Kerry (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the creator of the template in question, I can say that I was premature in creating it.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2018 (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:Bo Bruce[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) 04:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to warrant a navbox. --woodensuperman 16:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as 3 links is plainly not enough. Not sure what was going on with this version. J947 (c), at 03:09, 27 January 2018 (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:Andrea Begley[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) 04:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of the songs are originals, all cover versions, so there's very little of her own product to navigate here. --woodensuperman 16:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC) --woodensuperman 16:05, 24 January 2018 (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:More citations needed[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 keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 04:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on WP for almost 2 years (longer than that as an IP), and it took me a while to realize that this template should be deprecated. We have section and inline templates which narrow the problem down to a particular part of an article, making it easier to solve; there are also templates like {{one source}} and {{refexample}} that are more specific about exactly what the problem is. KMF (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep I use {{refimprove}} a lot (through tools such as Twinkle and New Page Curation), which is an alias for this template. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I use this template a lot, especially when the unsourced data is in a table or map. It would be very difficult to use inline citation needed tags in these instances. Stinger20 (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It isn't always necessary to be so specific about what the problem is. Harfarhs (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Honestly, this is a poorly thought out proposal. If more citations are needed, that's what it means. Not one source, or unsourced: it just means that more citations are needed. We don't need tag-bombing of more articles. epicgenius (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sometimes you need this one template and not a bunch of inline templates all over the place.Jooojay (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - while the more specific templates should be used to address specific sections of an article that need more citations, sometimes the whole article is a mess and this template is rather useful. Yes it can be misused from time to time, but that is an issue with all templates. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This is one of the most commonly used templates on Wikipedia. If you think it should be deprecated bringing it up at the Village Pump or something would be more likely to succeed than just nominating it for deletion. ❃Adelaide❃ (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with Ahecht's logic and feel el cid, el campeador also makes a very good point about the extent of the template's use. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep C'mon no brainer. Not only being among the most used templates on the Wikipedia, yet it the nom. comments says there are section templates for such criteria, that doesn't apply to all articles. There are literal articles with no or one source as a whole where this template applies perfectly. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2018 (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:IUPAC spelling US[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 into {{American English}} and {{British English}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:IUPAC spelling US with Template:American English, etc.  In detail:

Merge {{IUPAC spelling US}}'s output and categorization functionality as a |IUPAC=yes parameter in {{American English}}; the separate template is redundant. Merge the same feature to {{Canadian English}} and (for pages using the silent categorizing templates instead of the annoying banners) its categorizing functionality to {{Use American English}} and {{Use Canadian English}}.

For {{IUPAC spelling}}, similarly merge its functionality to the same kind of parameter in {{British English}}, {{Use British English}}, and all the other non-North American ENGVAR templates.

The IUPAC stuff does not magically just apply to US and UK English.

Similarly, merge {{British English Oxford spelling}} output and categorisation functionality to {{British English}} and categorisation to {{Use British English}}, using an |Oxford=yes parameter; add the same to all other pairs of non-North American English templates. Oxford spelling does not apply only to UK English but to all Commonwealth English varieties, primarily used in writing about academic topics.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with this proposed merging.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – 5 templates when only 2 are needed. J947 (c), at 03:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge obvious duplication — Catrìona (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Your plan seems reasonably thought out. :) TheDragonFire (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question SMcCandlish I understand these are two independent proposals, right? One re IUPAC, another one re Oxford spelling. - DePiep (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really see the meaning of the question. This could have been two separate TfDs, but it's more efficient to do it as one, since the proposed result and the rationale for it are the same: merge away redundant templates by making them parameters. - SMcCandlish
I could not figure out whether the Oxford templates had anything to do with the IUPAC templates. Would |Oxford=yes change the effect of |IUPAC=yes? This is about (in)dependency, and it is not clear. Check this: what when |IUPAC=yes and |Oxford=yes both are set in {{British English}}? Does a second 'yes' change the first one? - DePiep (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Belated answer: "no conflict"; Oxford English just consists of "-ize" instead of "-ise" and that has no effect on IUPAC, which is about some technical terms in standards. Honestly, I don't think the IUPAC option should even exist here, but I didn't care enough to TfDelete that variant. It's harmless, even if pointless and disused.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the IUPAC ones; I understand the proposal is this:
1. Add parameter option |IUPAC=yes to all English language templates (including the {{Use ...}} ones),
2. ... to this effect: it states that chemical (IUPAC) names are written per IUPAC definition, overruling any local (English variant) spelling. Notably, this pertains to the IUPAC spelling of aluminium, sulfur, caesium and names of chemical compounds (not aluminum, sulphur, cesium).
3. Templates with "IUPAC" in their name are to be replaced (preferably deleted in the future, for being this confusing & incorrect).
About the Oxford ones, I have no opinion. -DePiep (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what the TfD nomination says. Was there something unclear about it?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not any more. For my mind & background, it was described a bit too loose and requiring homework. - DePiep (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Could someone please clarify: what would be the code for these? Right now we have en-US, en-OED, en-BR. How would the new IUPAC and Oxford switch be encoded into these? There will be like: en-US/non-IUPAC (default en-US, I guess) vs. en-US/IUPAC. -DePiep (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think codes exist for them, and this is not a lang-xx markup template that emits ISO language codes anyway. I don't think we're making up new ones on the fly; Trappist the monk would probably know for sure.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Asked for this side-effect friend: inside-of-template {{engvar}} uses these codes to select engvar spellings (an article editor can enter |engvar=en-GB to have the template say "coloUr"). This would be helped having a limited & systematic list of code options. - DePiep (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    en-US is correct for American English; if en-BR is supposed to be for British English then that code is wrong because in that form, as an IETF language tag, it is malformed. BR is an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code for Brazil so the code means: English as spoken in Brazil; en-UK is invalid because UK is a reserved ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code. The correct code for British English is en-GB. We should not be making up our own codes when there are international standards that already define them. If a language code is required for OED then, in keeping with the international IETF language tag standard, perhaps en-x-OED would serve. —Trappist the monk (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it should be en-GB then. Question remains the same. -DePiep (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notified MOS:ENGVAR, WP:CHEMISTRY, WP:ELEMENTS. - DePiep (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have a question about the IUPAC Template US itself. Most Americans I know spell aluminum in common use as aluminum with no "ium" and so, I confess, I am confused by the merger proposal. Is it possible for someone to dummy up the proposed merged template/templates? I am having a hard time understanding what the new/proposed template would look like... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An article having {{American English}} would say it writes "color, aluminum" etc. {{American English|IUPAC=yes}} (code should be showing) would say it writes "color, aluminium" (all words that IUPAC has defined are overwritten). This would likely occur in chemical articles, adhering to the formal defined chemicals spelling. HTH. - DePiep (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the chemical usage as it stands now. I just want to know if this proposed merger would - in articles that use common American English usage, and are not chemical in nature - have the templates on those pages retain the aluminum spelling variant in that particular template (a spelling which is both common and correct in the general American vernacular). Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The common American English vernacular of Aluminum for American English and Aluminum for IUPAC/chemical usage will be preserved won't it? I just want to make sure I understand what will change and what won't. I'm not arguing that merging and deleting the redundant templates in the service of efficiency isn't a good idea, I'm just stuck on where aluminum and aluminum will appear in the proposed merged template. Shearonink (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My 14:24 post should have shown the template call in code to point to |IUPAC=yes parameter setting. Sorry for creating confusion. -DePiep (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand what you posted above. Anyway, I'll pretend that I do - coding is not my strong suit. I just wanted to make certain that the visible evariants between aluminIUM & aluminUM were preserved in the forthcoming/proposed template. Shearonink (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I believe that the same English will always be used for IUPAC names and other words for consistency. Ꞷumbolo 20:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "This template is being considered for merging" etc. etc. is appearing in editnotices. Yet another reason why TFD and TFM templates should be wrapped imside noinclude tags. KMF (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per nominator. Makes complete sense not to have redundent templates. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 5 February 2018 (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:AK legislatures[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 relisted on 2018 February 1. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:21, 1 February 2018 (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/2018_January_24&oldid=827075598"